King maybe could of stopped the try if he wasn't deliberatley taken out by Gleeson.

In your opinion what should Gleeson have done? stopped supporting the ball carrier?

What should he have done? Stopped running??

What should he have done? Stopped playing?

Sorry, was feeling left out.

I didn't say that. Good support play is not running and obstructing a defending player.

so i ask again what should Gleeson have done? Should he have run out of the way giving King a clear shot at the tackle?

How many games of RL have you actually seen? Because you're coming across like this was your first TBH.

If the boot were on the other foot regarding the Gleeson incident and it had been Warrington scoring the try instead of Wigan. In the exact same circumstances i would have been mightily hacked off if the try had been disallowed.

It always puts a better perspective on the incident if you think of your team as the so-called sinners, not the sinned against.

But to certainly not go ahead and obstruct king.
and so i ask again. on your previous reply of ''Matt king could of been done for a tackle without the ball''
your saying king tackled gleeson?

Mate the ref did not give it, the video ref did not give it and the try stood. A wire player made contact with Gleeson while he was running a support line knocking him into Roberts, if that was King, which i think it was i feel there was more justification to call for a penalty to Wigan than claim an obstruction.

Thankfully the refs got it right and the rest is purely speculation. The try was correctly awarded, Wigan won and you are having trouble dealing with it, despite the evidence and facts.

How anyone can say a supporting runner is obstructing play is beyond me. If this was the case, every time someone made a break and there was more than 1 person in support, the try would have to be disallowed



Matt King tackled Gleeson as well, it's not like Gleeson stopped him from getting to Amos, King just read it wrong and had a stinker really.