Will the Rfl apologise to Leeds and admit they got the McGuire try decision wrong, as wigan have scored an almost identical try and it's been allowed.
Shocking decision Rfl and video ref a joke again

Thats a ing joke that that was given, especially since Widnes got penalised for a weaker claim, not long before that

Will the RFL apologise?

He got a point to be fair , cant play the game under different rules

Cummins was alright with it being given.

Will people please learn the rules! Dummy runners are allowed the run through the line! That's what was happening tonight, defender makes a terrible read and goes to tackle him on his inside shoulder, the ball is already outside him.

bad read!

The Leeds one, dummy runner runs, stops in the line. Hangs around in there, Leeds player runs behind him, impedes Wigan defender. not a bad read, a rule break!

Winterstein couldn't get to the man to tackle them as he was blocked from doing so, isn't that obstruction?

Read it in the papers boo hoo

He was blocked because of his own bad decision, not the dummy runners fault.

honestly some shocking bias on here!! are you really saying that mellor dummying and running behind a play isn't an obstruction rule? also Mcguire ran around the back of hes player.

They are two very different cases.

Maguire had the ball in his hands and ran round the back of his own player who was close to the defensive line therefore under the current interpretation a clear penalty.

Tonight the dummy runner and defender made contact, the VR has to decide whether the runner went into the defender or the defender made a poor decision and moved into the attacker, in truth it was probably a bit of both. I think Wigan got the benefit of a 50/50 call.

For those of you who think it was an obstruction, out of the commentary team, Stevo and Eddie thought it was obstruction, Stuart Cummins, Carney and Wells didn't. Which one of those is more knowledgeable?

That wasn't remotely similar, the receiver was so far back he wasn't in tackling range because of the decision in the defence, not Tuson - and no advantage was gained due to the contact anyway, a different hole was used for the break and Winterstein(?) never put himself in range of (can't remember if it was Tierney or whoever).

Although wigan fans would never admit it, if the roles were reversed they'd be completely up in arms and the RFL conspiracy about favoring leeds would be in full flow.

if blake green runs around the back of liam farrell its obstruction, doesn't matter if he is a meter behind him or 3 meters its still obstruction. tuson was running back in and winterstien body changes direction and goes in towards tuson, winterstien could of slid across with out making contact on tuson.

As I said in the McGuire incident, the problem isn't the specific ruling it was the pathetic justification of it and the way the VR judge it. Obstruction is quite clearly a subjective decision, and that's fine but just leave it with guy on the field making them.

I have no problem with the inconsistency between the two incidents, more that the game is pretending that inconsistency isn't there. They are talking themselves into a corner and guaranteeing criticism

Dennis betts just said he was sure it was a try!

the problem with this as a defence is that in the Leeds incident no contact was made and it was given obstruction on the basis that clarkson was taking up space where a tackle could have been made, it is impossible to say Tuson wasn't.

Both were tries IMO though.

Learn the rules. Then come back and we can have a discussion! Because you clearly are not aware of them from what you have said so far!

Tuson runs inside the defender's inside shoulder, the pass is caught behind him in line with the defender's outside shoulder. Cummins said this was fine.

So you don't think it was a try.

Cummins said in his opinion it was a try.

Tonight the ball was passed behind the man, whilst with the Leeds one the man ran with the ball behind the man. That is an obvious difference, I'm not sure if one is legal and the other isn't, and would like someone in the know to clarify that.

i think the head of former referees spoke about it clearly. I am actually really enjoying stuart cummings being on the commentary team and explaining the referees point of view; now i need to go and punish my self for saying that.

Once again Smokey you have, just like countless previous occasions, ignored parts of posts and just focused on what you want too.

It is the other part of your post I was referring to. Also the point where you say both were try's. I do have to say it is a first where you have ignored your own posts though! usually you just ignore large parts of everyone else's posts to try and convince people (probably yourself as well) that you are right.

So you do think it was a try? like I do. So we both agree it was a try?

Which rule are we pretending I got wrong?