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?

I do think it was a try, that is barely scratching the surface of what you stated however, lets not kid ourselves and miss things out all the time.

You also stated that the leeds one was also a try, whilst trying to liken what the leeds dummy runner did to what happened with the wigan dummy runner!

Stating it is impossible to say that Tuson wasnt taking up space in which a tackle could have been made. When in fact this is complete and utter rubbish! The defender had made a poor read as tuson was aiming to run through the space inbetween the defenders inside shoulder and the next defender. the defender follows tuson and tackles him when the ball has already been transferred outside of Tuson.

It was a textbook dummy run, he aimed to run through the space, the defender made a poor read and followed him whilst the ball was shipped wide.

Why not make it simple, and go back to the first principles of what it says in the laws of the game?

Stick to those, and penalise obstruction only if a dummy runner does something which impedes a defender.

If the defender makes a bad call, it's his problem. If the dummy runner does nothing to affect the defenders, irrespective of where he stops, or where the ball or the player is at the time, it's play on.

Would make life so much easier for officials, commentators and spectators alike.