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.

Gleeson is supporting Roberts and never even looks at king. King then tackles Gleeson.

: ,V GOOD GAME AND WE GOT THE POINTS THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT.

Still if King had got under him i think Wigan would have scored even closer to the sticks

Its all chip paper now but two things came to mind watching it again

1 If we had watched the play before rather than assuming the tackle was complete we would have been in position to defend the attack properly
2 The Gleeson run would have almost certainly been given as obstruction anywhere else on the park, we've all seen it happen so many times whoever we support

See you on the ice

Try.

After just seeing Leigh being penalized for an obstruction, the Leigh player was only "supporting the player" so it should of not been a penalty, so if that's a penalty then there 2nd try should not of been a try

The 'big' clubs get all the decisions go their way !!