It doesn't matter whether it was deliberate or not, it's still obstruction. Having said that, Wigan won the game, end of story.

Exactly, many obstructions are given with dummy runners and support players, deliberate doesnt come into it. I think he changed his line and position

Some of the blame has to lie with King. Gleeson was supporting, King had to make more of an effort to get to Roberts, he cannot run into someone and claim he was obstructed as it was the quickest way to the player.

I believe the try should have been given, however, here's my take on the "supporting player" theory. Gleeson is obviously allowed to support the player in the event an offload can be made, and this stands while Gleeson is behind or parrallel to Roberts. However, once Gleeson is in front of Roberts in that position, it would be impossible to pass to him, thats when i believe a genuine question of obstruction can be asked. Gleeson has as much responsibilty to avoid contact in that position as King does, and it was one i could have seen going either way. Had the game been level at that point, i don't think it would have been given. All of this is acedemic of course, as we had ample oppurtunity to take the game, but fell just short. You'll see no complaints from me about the game at all.

It wasn't obstruction as King was behind Gleeson and caught him from behind. Gleeson had every right to run that line as there was no player in front of him.

Don't understand the fuss with this one. It was obstruction and the try should have been disallowed BUT Wigan were well on top and would probably had scored another anyway. We were out of shape defensively at that time and rattled.

We had our purple patch before half time, they had theirs in the second half. We lost by a centimetre, get over it and move on because if both teams play like that week after week we will have more important games against each other later this season.

Instead of complaining about this one how about applauding Harrison Hansen for holding that ball when he didn't know where the hell he was. I'm pretty sure if he drops it we get the ball back and win, but they are the fine margins.

Great game.

wasnt obstruction was a poor attempt by King to get to Roberts, ask the Vr if you dont believe me

The fuss is with statements like the underlined (although credit for the rest of the post!).

I fully understand that many fans don't actually know the rules but that's no excuse when it has been explained time and again. Gleeson was entitled to run the line he did as King came from behind him. That's the end of it. There is no room for 'opinion' such as the one you state above. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, it's simply the rules and unless they are changed (which I seriously doubt will ever happen as the consequences would be impossible to ref!) the decision to award the try was the right one!

Gleeson isn't allowed to change his line though to obstruct a player, i'd have to see it again to be sure but i'm pretty sure he cut accross

he can change his line is he needs too, its the same as sayiong King should change his line of run but he didnt, he was behind Gleeson so knew what was coming. Tried too milk the penalty for me and failed.

He doesn't have to do anything at all. He is in the box seat and if King has misread the play and come too far forward that he isn't able to cover the break then that is poor play from King. If they were both tracking back and running shoulder to shoulder, Gleeson would have had to hold his line, but as King was coming from behind Gleeson can just support the play as he sees fit. That is all by the by of course as Gleeson didn't change his line anyway, but it isn't a consideration had he done so as he was simply supporting the break.

To try to put this into perspective, let's say two REALLY slow players make a break from their own half, one with the ball, one supporting. The defending team then track them back and one defender on catching up with the support player runs into him. Are you saying this would be obstruction or poor play from the defender? Just because this happened over a shorter distance doesn't alter the principle (or indeed the rule as stated in the rule book! )

It was a clear try and I can't believe they even went upstairs for it. You are allowed to run next to a player with the ball, it's a large part of how the game is played. If you start ruling obstruction in a case like that then an awful lot of penalties would be awarded in games.

It was no different than most cases when a centre passes a winger in at the corner. The physical presence of the centre prevents the sliding defense from getting to the winger. It's not obstruction though.

Indeed. As a point of interest, Gleeson runs exactly the same line in support of the last try (Tomkins' chip over). Thought it was also interesting that Solomona took Deacon out off the ball during the Anderson try but, again, it was the defender's mis-read that was the cause and in no way was a penalty.

I'm gonna have to see this one again, I thought Gleeson came from behind King to obstruct his line, thats why king ended up over the line, from the collision with Gleeson. My mind could be playing tricks on me but i'll take another look later.