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.

not bent, just incompetent.

As stated throughout this thread, if he thought it was an obstruction he should have given the penalty in the first instance, not let play go on. He obviously didn't think it was an obstruction or worthy of a penalty, or he would have penalised it straight away rather than let Leeds play on. His decision making in sending it upstairs as a no-Try was flawed. The only 2 options he has in that situation is to send it up as a Try, or actually award the try.

I wonder what would the decision have been if he had sent it up as a Try. Probably would have been given the benefit of the doubt, and given.

He wasn't sure. He sent it up. Decision made. Can't see the problem. Refs make thousands of decisions every game (work it out). Can they be 100% sure of all of them? No.

I don't like Silverwood. I don't care for his attitude. I much prefer Thaler, who seems to have a sense of humour. But he is certainly no cheat. As for being inept. I think that's a stretch. He wouldn't keep getting the top games if he was making mistakes continually.

That's the point though. He wasn't sure so he should have sent it up to the VR as a TRY. There is no logic in his decision to send it on as No Try. By saying No Try, he has made the decision that there was an obstruction, in which case he should have penalised it at the time.

By saying Try he would be inviting the video referee to find something wrong with it.

The No Try referral is fine for situations where he isnt sure whether the player grounded the ball or not, or where he might be in touch; but in a situation where he has let play go on he shouldn't then be able to say No Try, and re-refer something that he has already made a call on.

Maybe he thought the try was so good that it seemed a shame to disallow it outright, so he sent it up. In that respect he was doing Leeds a favour - so maybe he is bent

This comes closest to my feelings on it, though I'd add that the video ref has no excuse for deciding that there was an obstruction as there clearly was not. The on field ref making a call has turned what was a lottery into a fixed game - if he'd sent that up as a Try it would have stood - so we're actually further away from the correct decisions being made rather than closer as was intended.

That decision actually highlighted my biggest issue with the VR in the game these days, that defensive foulplay is often completely ignored. When checking for try/no try the first question that should always be asked is 'Were the defending team onside?' if they weren't or the markers were not square then that is always the first offence and in the event of a no try decision it should be a penalty to the attacking side, yet they never check. Let's live in a fantasy world where obstruction was the right call, the next play should have been penalty to Leeds as half the Wigan side were offside, instead we get no try and have to hand over the ball. that's not right.

I need to watch it again but I don't see how you can say there was "clearly" no obstruction. It was a shame because it was an unbelievable try, but the correct decision was made.

You really do need to watch it again. It's really very simple, nobody was obstructed. At all. Not a tiny bit. Tomkins made a bad read, asked the ref to bail him out and Silverwood obliged, end of story. If that's the correct decision then say goodbye to dummy runners, because now all you have to do is run in to them and you'll get a penalty.

It would have been interesting to see the VR decision if Silverwood had sent it up thinking it probably was a try.

You get the feeling the VR try their hardest to find a reason to match the on field refs decision.