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.

I think Cummins' way of putting it was "if the player receives the ball on the inside shoulder of the dummy runner and runs around the back to the outside shoulder, it's obstruction; but if he receives it on the outside shoulder it's fine."

Basically, you can pass behind the dummy runner, but you can't run behind him. It's pretty simple. The incident last night and against Leeds are completely different.

Pretty much spot on.

Well said! Exactly correct.

Yep that's it. Cummings said after watching the McGuire incident only once or twice that it was obstruction and almost straight away last night that it was a fair try. There is clearly a difference and the refs know what it is even if the majority of the RL public(inc. McDermott?) don't.

IIRC McDermott admitted it shouldn't have been a try but at the same time said it should have been given. I think what he was trying to say is be disagrees with the current interpretation in that instance.

The problem with the obstruction rule is there are so many variables that it is impossible to account for them all in the rule book. It simply comes down to does the official believe a defender was prevented or denied the opportunity of effecting a tackle. If yes then it's a penalty, if no then it's not.

Also fans should stop listening to the opinions of Eddie and Stevo who largely make it up as they go along. Actually add Clarke to that list. Cummings has been excellent since he has been on offering a refs viewpoint and knows more about the rules than any of us, Carney and Wells are knowledgeable. I like to listen to McCrea (sp?) when on the panel.

However, after watching the reply Cummings believed his first reaction was was wrong abd that the played did run behind the man. Then the video ref disagreed & the try was given.

Let's not get the facts, or the rules, get into a good slagging off of the RFL and Wigan. Nothing wrong with it at all. Hence why it was given.

Why isn't this communicated to the commentators?

They don't kow what they are talking about and thus create false controversy with fans. This is a prime example with last night and mcguires try, both simple and correct decisions.

It was extremley close but at the point of physically touching the ball the wigan player was on the outside shoulder of the dummy runner.

Wigan couldn't have got the timing much more perfect.

That's not strictly correct. After several viewings he obviously wasn't as sure as he was to begin with. These are the fine margins we are talking about. As i said previously it was a 50/50 call that went in wigan's favour. What the VR had to determine was if Tierney received the ball and ran behind the dummy runner or if the ball was passed behind the dummy runner before Tierney received the ball. There was maybe 6 inches in it either way, as the current rules state that benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side then the try was correctly awarded.

There isn't any inconsistency the incidents aren't even similar

One was correctly disallowed and one was correctly awarded

This.

It is communicated to them. They just don't understand!

How many times does something need to be communicated to Wiggy & Baldie, two three...even four times before it sinks in?

Two weeks on the trot they have screamed for a penalty for dragging into touch only to be corrected by Cummings on both incidents that they were one-on-one tackles, closely followed by an awkward tumbleweed silence!

It happened in the Hudds v Saints game and also Widnes v Wigan. The problem is they both watch the game as specators and still don't understand the technicalities of it unlike Cummings.

Give it a month and they'll shift him out as he's making the pair look stupid.

The man who knows the rule and their interpretation of them best is Stuart Cummings.
In the Wigan/Leeds game he was expaining why it would be disallowed long before it came on the sceen. Friday's Widnes/Wigan game he was expaining why it would be given long before the decision was on the screen.
S Cummings is a breath of fresh air in that commentary team.
Stevenson and Hemmings know no more about the rules that the average speccie sat in the stands.
Both decisions by the VR were correct.