Cost me a fiver this did!

Stuart Cummings has lied about the rules numerous times on Sky in order to defend the referees. Last night was another occasion.

Now, in my opinion of what an obstruction SHOULD be then that last night was a penalty. You run behind your own man (1 who's made a run like Watkins, not 1 stood there "out of play"icon_wink.gif close to the defensive line then I think it should be a penalty.

But that's not what the rule is and we've seen a fair few tries given this year that were "worse" than that. That's the bit that's annoying as a Leeds fan, especially as the decision was made by the video ref. The video ref shouldn't be getting decisions wrong, it's inexcusable.

If Silverwood had made that call in play then ok. I might still mutter a bit but he has to make an instant decision after 1 viewing often from an imperfect viewpoint. But the VR shouldn't be getting those wrong.

I'm also concerned as to how a ref can send an incident such as that up to the video ref as "no try". It wasn't an incident over the try line where you're making an instant decision, by allowing play to continue Silverwood has already made his decision. So if he thought it was obstruction he should have blown his whistle. As others have said, if Leeds get tackled play continues.

It's another inconsistency with the refereeing that leads to unintended consequences.
The unintended consequence of refs not calling held earlier is that you get more wrestling and twisting of players and so more injuries.

The unintended consequence of refs not policing the ruck (interference etc) is that you get more "exaggeration" by ball carriers at the play the ball.

The unintended consequence of refs only using the VR after players go down injured is that players pretend to be injured.

The unintended consequence of refs allowing play to continue in order to send it up to the VR instead of making a decision is that it's now in the attacking teams interest to get tackled immediately after an incident rather than go for the try.

Its funny how a lot of people seem the decision was by the letter of the law, you cant run behind your own player, obstruction was correct etc. I suggest you go read the actual law.

By the letter of the law, Watkins did everything required of him at the time, i.e raised his hands to signal he wasn't involved in the play, however Tomkins, who wasn't impeded in the slightest decided to risk allowing a score against his team by moving towards Watkins, feigning obstruction and throwing his hands in the air. If I was Wigan and Wane id be having a word with Tomkins about his commitment in defence as we will likely see these tries given at some point in the future due to the inconsistent performance of the match officials.

As for "the expert" Stuart Cummings, take what he says with a pinch of salt. He hasn't got a clue and only succeeds in making himself and the match officials look more and more stupid every week. Cummings will say something constantly until he believes its true and then shrink back in to his shell when the complete opposite decision is given. It was only last week I think when the vid ref was called on to debate a knock on during a try, every man and his dog was calling try and the vid ref agreed. Not t'old Stu pot though, no, he was adamant it was a knock on. Nice try Stu, thanks for your input.

Agreed - and in and of themselves, unintended consequences are not a disaster; if you identify them and make corrections, then you're demonstrating that you can learn and adapt. The problem with RL is that it's run by a tin-pot organisation with no such professional discipline, so there appears to be no mechanism by which they can tweak a rule, watch what happens, then make further tweaks to correct the unintended consequences of their actions. By contrast, coaches and players seem perfectly capable of so doing, which is why every year, new and more egregious forms of cheating become commonplace, with no response from the RFL.

Tompkins f@cked up and the ref rescued him. As every player on the commentary team said. Which player was obstructed? Because Tompkins wasn't he was at the wrong side to be so.

Hilarious this thread. Wigan fans blindly defending the decision, as if not doing so could reverse it and wipe out their lucky win.

Last night goes to show how poor a decision it is by Sky to have the ref present on the coverage. He also blindly defends the onfield official, even when he's totally wrong he'll find a reason why he couldn't have seen it.

Boo Hoo,

Why not start a petition or just take it on the chin - that's what you and your cohorts normally tell us lesser teams when we are at the sharp end of poor refereeing which incidentally is far more often than Leeds.

That said and because I'm a bigger man, Leeds were harshly done to by a few dreadful decisions - however this happens to most teams every week and if you ever bothered to watch any other teams you'd know.

It's just a shame that a great piece of free flowing skill can be ruled out on such a minor thing, he was never going to make the tackle. It's one of the things I dislike about those who run the game, it's become too analytical.

Refs should blow as soon as they think a foul has been committed. If they allow play to continue, and a try is scored, it should be 'TRY' (except check grounding)
Union have the VR right. Our game however is run by a inept bunch of old farts and pig ignorant officials

Looking forward to the Twitter 'Asktheref' bollox next week. You can ask questions, but all you get back is utter crap and patronizing twaddle

I think cause Watkins stopped in front of the defenders they had to give obstruction, but if he would have kept running through I think it wouldn't have been obstruction.

Happens most weeks

Move on and get over it

Don't remember 6 pages criticising thaler on the vt when he did the same againt hull fc in the recent catalan fixture in perpignan when Pomeroy went down like he had been shot to cancel a good try out

The biggest injustice of the season still has to be Cas getting a perfectly good try chalked off by the VR because their right wing couldn't be seen in the camera shot, to prove that he was on side.
The very fact that he wasn't in the frame meant that he must have been on side, but the "try" was disallowed.

Nothing could top that one !

(mind you, it was Cas, so it really doesn't matter )

If he was bent, he'd have disallowed it. He sent it upstairs. It wasn't his decision. How does that make him bent?

Absolute shocker from Silverwood last night, and he should be spending a week or two on the sidelines. Topped off by going to the video to check if the Leeds player was onside, when he was at least 10metres behind the kick.

As an aside, why did the video referee not intervene on the knock on decision, as they have done on multiple occasions this year? Video referees have consistently interfered in games, yet didn't on such a blatant mistake from the onfield officials.

I'll take your word that the win was lucky. As a Saints fan...

Of course it's just possible that the decision was correct.