Hear hear. That game was far too even for any other analysis.

I`m not giving comment on whether it was a try or not but Martin Gleeson has always been a crafty player, if you watch him closely he will quite often get to his feet then go back down again if he feels the slightest touch whilst looking towards the ref. He did this when Wigan played Hull KR recently and got a pen which i think lead to a try not long after, he tried it on against us the other night but his acting didn`t get rewarded.

He probably knew exactly where Matt King was as you don`t need to be looking at a player to know someone is close by, in my opinion he craftily put himself in between Roberts and King and made sure he didn`t look at King so it looked like support play.

I agree entirely. There is not a chance on earth Gleeson didn't know King was there whether he was looking at him or not. That said, me personally I would have given it 'no try'. However, I'm biased in Warrington's favour and I'm biased against Gleeson so I'll say it was a 50/50 call that you can argue either way.

as i said in another thread.. i think its a try that is given to a losing side... if wigan had been winning 16-4 the try would have been disallowed.

If you watch it carefully, you will see that, as Roberts is tackled, Gleeson continues his run and collides with King. Roberts reaches out and scores with Gleeson in front of him, blocking King.
More like American Football than rugby league.

Just cant see how it was given

Simple really, the VR was of the opinion that Gleeson did not deliberately obstruct King.

What was Gleeson to do? He is doing his job in supporting the ball carrier.

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!