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.

That's a shame because I generally like Burrow, but nobody likes sour grapes. Maybe your classy coach is rubbing off on him?

This is what Wigan do very well by creating an obstruction in there favour, they did it quite a lot last season. They also milk situations when the ref has got his "eye off the ball", example was Micky Mc playing the ball into Wilkins face with his shins who was down on the floor with a blood head injury, think that was Silverwood, who only saw an "interference" play the ball and penalised the injured player.
We see a lot of instances where all players make false claims and the referee is forced into making a judgement which results in inconsistencies, smart play or a con play, depending which side you are on?

From a neutral perspective, McDermott has a lot more tact about him than the Great Ape of Lancashire.

Except he explained the 2014 interpretation, not the 2015 one.

Not much point having a supposed expert on the laws of the game sat in the commentary box if he doesn't even bother to keep his own understanding of them up to date.

Indeed he did

Because everyone on here is familiar with the rules, right? Tomkins was…

Spot on.

The system is a mess.

Also, had McGuire been tackled short and Leeds scored on the next play that would have been fine even though silverwood thought there was an obstruction

It's a tight one, but you can't run behind your man that close to the defensive line and Watkins was already well in front of Singleton when he got the ball. It's close enough that I can understand why you'd be livid but it was the right decision.