You're the second person to make this ridiculous argument, and it holds absolutely no water. The try was (wrongly) awarded on the merits of the obstruction call. If they'd disallowed the try that is when they could consider awarding Cas a penalty for offside.

That's actually one of my big gripes about the video reffing system. Any time a try is disputed the first thing that should be looked at is the offside - that way if it's disallowed at least it's not a double whammy. Practically every disallowed try from within the ten should result in a penalty to the attack, but they never do.

Yes, you're probably right. He figured "we're at our lowest ebb in my entire career, we're in a must win match, approaching half time and we desperately need to keep them out on this set to have any hope of getting something out of this game. I know what to do, rather than aggressively go for the player with the ball I'll jump in to this guy and hope that the referee sees it."

Give your head a wobble. JJB didn't even milk it. On the commentary Stevo said 'He turns and has a look at the ref' he did no such thing, he never took his eyes off the ball, what he actually did was try to regain his running line and went after Gale.

That gets sent up as no try and there's no controversy here because it was obstruction, plain and simple. Millington was stood where he had no business being and it's entirely his responsibility to keep out of the defenders way. How far back Gale was doesn't matter, if it did then we could just have a tactic where you send a forward straight into the opposing line every time and just make sure you play at least ten yards behind him.

I can just about take how bad we are at the minute, but I'm not going to accept people defending what was simply a rank decision.

If he had ruled it out Leeds would have only lost 12-46, shame on them !!

Yes, you're probably right. He figured "we're at our lowest ebb in my entire career, we're in a must win match, approaching half time and we desperately need to keep them out on this set to have any hope of getting something out of this game. I know what to do, rather than aggressively go for the player with the ball I'll jump in to this guy and hope that the referee sees it."

Give your head a wobble. JJB didn't even milk it. On the commentary Stevo said 'He turns and has a look at the ref' he did no such thing, he never took his eyes off the ball, what he actually did was try to regain his running line and went after Gale.

That gets sent up as no try and there's no controversy here because it was obstruction, plain and simple. Millington was stood where he had no business being and it's entirely his responsibility to keep out of the defenders way. How far back Gale was doesn't matter, if it did then we could just have a tactic where you send a forward straight into the opposing line every time and just make sure you play at least ten yards behind him.

I can just about take how bad we are at the minute, but I'm not going to accept people defending what was simply a rank decision.

You give JJB too much credit. I think he realised there was a clear overlap and a try was going to be scored so he ran into the lead runner to try and get a penalty, changing his running line to do so.
Thankfully, the VR saw through him and awarded the try.

It's a clear obstruction.

Before the pass is made both Gale and Millington are both options presenting a 2 on 1 decision for JJB. Had he tackled Millington when neither he or Gale had the ball it could (correctly) be argued that JJB had made a bad defensive read. However, the pass had already been made and Gale received it on the inside shoulder of Millington, then ran behind Millington. Millington isn't a dummy runner at this point, he's a blocker.

Personally I think the obstruction rulings are at their lowest this year.

Oh, and for those saying there was sufficient depth, it must be sufficient enough for their to be no material impact, which of course there wasn't because the collision with Millington created a gap in the defensive line which had to be filled from the right.

How do you know?

i thought it was obstruction, millington ran right at him, and ended up right next to whoever the other cas dummy runner was.

Exactly as how I saw it, video ref with on screen running geometry would have been able to see it as well., falling over on minimum contact was a bit of a giveaway to make judgement.

I honestly don't see how that matters. Gale ran behind his own man with ball in hand. He didn't catch it on the outside shoulder, he ran behind him already with the ball. JJB is entitled to run any line he wants in those circumstances, the onus is entirely on Millington to not be there.

i'd have liked to have seen a wider shot, to see exactly where millington had come from, as he seemed to be straight into jjb, but he came into both shots quite late.

Because they're not allowed to say "Well yes he was obstructed but he was also offside so the two things cancel each other out" it's really not very complicated. The only question the video ref was asked was "Was there an obstruction" JJB being offside or not had no bearing whatsoever on that fact.

Excellent point, other than the fact it's entirely fabricated. JJB is running full pelt so the contract wouldn't be minimum and he didn't fall over, in fact he continued trying to pursue his man. Any other observations on the game? What did you think of Handley's 18 foot vertical leap? Or Burrow's knockout punch to Millington? If we're going to just abandon reality let's at least make it interesting.

It was a Marvel incident, you do know Millington's real name is Max Eisenhardnt and he attracted JJB to run towards him.

Try or no try I thought Cas were as outstanding as Leeds were poor.
Never seen Cas so free flowing & adventurous with ball in hand before but it was a joy to watch, granted Leeds allowed them to play that way but I'll bet the Cas fans danced all the way home.

One thing I want to point out (unless this thread is only about one try/no try decision) is that Stevo *unpopular I know* was bang on the money regarding Leeds [ilack of[/i tackling technique.
I forget/lost count of how many times he urged them to learn to get a man in low round the legs & he almost threw a party when one tackler did, but you just can't argue other than he was right.

Basic, basic schoolboy RL tackle drills.

The only other point I wish to make is that 'if he was serious', which I very much doubt, Phil Clarke was nuts to suggest Leeds might go down following the middle 8's. As a regular follower of one of the top 2 teams in Championship RL & probably the only 2 that could challenge any SL side in the 8's, I have seen enough to suggest that not one SL team will be relegated from the 8's or even defeated by a Championship side.

Great game Cas.