Play like life depends on it against leeds.

Bend over against wigan.

Standard.

And the obstruction rule changes again (or the VR's interpretation of it).

Correct.

Smith took the return ball on the inside of the passer and ran round him.

Whether or not you think it was an obstruction, the interpretation ALL SEASON, would have seen that scrubbed off.

lol at this thread,

1. Chase didn't even drop kick it grubberd it.
2. o'loughlin didn't trip chase he was trying to kick the ball back to a Wigan player and he made contact with the ball
3. the obstruction ruling was correct and people who don't understand the difference between a run around and a pass behind a dummy runner really need to wake up.

Good to see that it was the Ref who won the game, never mind.

Where exactly is Taylor (IIRC) meant to teleport to so that he doesn't 'obstruct' the Salford defender?

1 - I agree with that, it looked dubious to me.
2 - he did trip Chase, it will have been his intention to get the ball but he did clatter Chase and should've been a penalty.
3 - I was happy with both the obstruction decisions given tonight and thought the VR was correct with both. It's a poor argument for people say they wouldn't have awarded it earlier in the year (maybe they wouldn't) but does that mean they should continue calling them incorrectly or instead turn things around and use a bit of common sense.

Can somebody explain to me why it is a GIMME as John Kear said that Wigan would have a home play off tie?

Saints are above them. Leeds will go above them if they win this week and we will go joint with them on Sunday if we beat London :/

Because no matter the result of the first playoff game, or where it is, the 2nd one would be a home match.

Before someone mentions Wire, I doubt they'll make up the 200 points difference in 4 games even if they do manage to draw level with Wigan.

Maintain my stance, refs was terrible, Salford were worse. Wigan got some decisions I'd be embarrassed by if I were a Wigan fan, but Wigan could of not actually put a team out and Salford would still of lost. Didn't affect the result in any way, but still not good!

And the commentary was as equally painful...

Yep.


1 - I haven't seen it again but I thought he grubbered it too, but then that happens in plenty of "low" drop outs, not to mention kicking it from in front of the try line.

2 - It was the strangest attempt at kicking the ball back to a team mate I've seen if that's the case, he didn't make contact with the ball either. Should've been a penalty at least.

3 - No it wasn't. Because it wasn't a run around. It was a pass, followed by an inside return pass, followed by the ball carrier running behind his own player. That's not a run around. For it to be a run around the player "running around" (was it Smith?) needs to be much further "around" the man before he gets the return pass.

I can accept that, but not the "he intentionally ran over to trip him up" argument. I will have to look at it again but i don't think his foot made contact with chase did it, he did clatter into him but its just two players going for a 50-50 ball. Also thats not the first time chase has done that for a drop out.

Let's start with the original topic. SOL tried to kick the ball backwards, missed and took Chase instead, yes it should have been a penalty but 'football tackles' , bit OTT. As others have pointed out the 'drop out' wasn't drop kicked. I'm not sure whether that should have resulted in a penalty or a re-take. Anyone know the rules on that one.

I assume the obstruction people are talking about is in the build up to the Gelling try after half time. If it is then yes it should have been given IMO. If you're talking about the Smith try then you obviously don't know the rules or understand the game. As I said on our board, obstruction seems to have gone full circle this season. Not too long ago we were all complaining too many were given now they are looking for reasons not to give them.

I find it quite amusing on threads like this how most of you love to point out the calls that went in Wigan's favour and ignore the ones that didn't. Griffin stamped on Flower. Not a particularly vicious one admittedly but a stamp it was. Smith was taken out without the ball over the line, there should have been a strong case for a penalty try, if not it should certainly have been a penalty. When I watch the game back I'm sure I could counter the calls that went in Wigan's favour with ones that went in Salfords.

Wigan played reasonably well and ran away with it in the end. We were dominant in the tackle and controlled the play the ball. Salford were very poor, their timing was off, every time they got in a decent position they dropped it and Sau bombed a sitter. The ref did not contribute to the result.

The fact his foot swung back to his own line would imply he was trying to kick it backwards.

your second sentence explains a run around perfectly, catching the ball on the outside shoulder does not apply when the runner has passed the ball.