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

because hes a spineless coward just like the rest of our amateur refs. Theres a reason why RL is still parochical its the ineptitude of the officials and the amateur clowns like obese dave woods who are running the game (into the ground)

RL outside the heartlands is either entirely anonymous or a laughing stock. I was telling a client up here in the NE about the Stobart sponsorship debacle and he thought I was joking. They literally would have got better value if they had been given a bag of magic beans for title sponsorship rights, at least we could have harvested the ing beanstalk. Its so frustrating because we have great athletes, a fabulous product some great clubs and a rabid supporter base being let down by rank amateurs in red hall and in charge of officiating the games

i take it the "whinos" lost tonight

Shhhhh, Your not allowed to point out the decisions that went the other way!.....




fwiw I thought it was a great game and with the amount of chances Wigan created I don't think anyone can say they didn't deserve to win. I wouldn't have argued with a draw but to the people who seem to be saying that Leeds were the better team tonight are a bit away from the truth imo.

Rugby Gods?

For what it's worth, I thought the disallowed Leeds try should have been given. And I have to say the two phases leading up to it were as good as I've seen this year, unbelievable offloads and movement.

But there were more than a few ifs, buts and maybes in that match. Overall, a draw would definitely have been fair but I'm pleased to have edged it at the end - huge win for Wigan.

No, that was last week when Danny McGuire "broke" his ankle.