by the letter of the law it was obstruction, McGuire, ran behind Watkins, but for me Tomkins could have made the tackle.

Aiton though, what a dumbass!

But what I still dont understand it Silverwood sent it to the video ref as NO TRY as he saw an Obstruction. If he saw an obstruction why did he not blow?? If Leeds would have been tackled it would have been play on Leeds even though he saw an obstrucion.....

Nice try, but I'm happy that for all of Leeds' offloads and good play, Wigan did enough to win.

Enjoyed that game very much. All the more enhanced by the outrage on here.

...and what law is this?

Just because someone runs behind a player does not automatically mean that there was an obstruction. It is only obstruction when, in the opinion of the ref, the defending team has been materially disadvantaged.

The knock on was by far the worse one. Wigan got a lucky win, I'd definitely feel hard done to if I were a Leeds supporter. Funny though, Wane says something disrespectful and it's a big deal, Burrow says something and it's a really good thing, how does that work?

I'd say a draw was fair.

I thought it probably was obstruction, Tomkins made a meal of it but I think he was close enough to attempt a tackle had Watkins not been there. Agree with the OP though, if Silverwood thought it was obstruction he should have stopped it there and then. Unless it was the touch judge that told him it was no try.

As an aside I thought Cuthbertson was outstanding. His ability to offload is as good as I've seen. It's rare that Sky MoM goes to someone on the losing team, but he was the best player on the pitch for my money.

I openly admit I'm glad Leeds lost.
Also there would have been tries probably given if the ridiculous video referee system was eliminated.
Just let the match officiate, and make errors just like the Leeds and Wigan players did.
Oh and the reason why Leeds lost!
They didn't score more points than the opposition and Ablett played in his stupid mode which is a shame because when he wants to play he is very good.

Craig Huby, and Kevin Penny have both been awarded tries against Leeds this season despite an obstruction "to the letter of the law"... It seems to me, it's a flip a coin job.

Unfortunately though that's always going to be the case, as a rule it's hugely open to interpretation. The only way you can make it black and white is to say that anyone who runs behind a teammate will be penalised regardless, and no one wants to see that. Just take it on the chin.

I think the ref knew that previous play the ball should have been a pen (grabbing Sarginsons leg whilst he is playing the ball) so saw what he wanted to see to make it right.

The obstruction was fair enough. If Watkins wasn't there Tomkins wouldn't have run in, that is fair enough to say (so he made a bad read) but he could have made a play at the ball carrier without Watkins in between him and said ball carrier. Watkins should have gone through the line, not stood right in the way.

I don't think anyone would say it wouldnt have been a try if Watkins ran through the line. But he didn't. Why? His team gains an advantage from him being there.

Got away with? Oh please. Give your head a wobble.

Silverwood had a good game. The knock-on was missed in live play (unsurprisingly, given it was a marginal touch), but then Leeds got away with Hall's leg-pulling a few seconds earlier. Swings and roundabouts.

The obstruction was correct. You simply can't run behind a player so close to the defensive line when that player is stood among the defenders. I'm not sure how many more times Cummings could have explained it for the hard of understanding.

I wonder if those outraged Leeds fans would feel the same had it been, say, Tomkins stood in their own defensive line, with Smith running behind him. Oh, you would? Yes, of course you would.

Ironically that no try was given on a point that, in the past, there was no arguments with. "Crossing" was the obstruction rule that everyone on the terraces actually understood. The guy with the ball runs behind his own man so unsighting the defence. Then Wigan ran their dummy runner plays that coaches complained about and obstruction decisions just got daft.
Watkins shoved his hands in the air and gave himself up.
As to the reason silverwood didn't call it straight away- why should he? He knew he could call on the VR if Leeds put the ball down to check it.

incorrect