There are two issues here.

1. If Peacock's try was BOD then so should have been Donalds (given) and Ainscough's (disallowed). There is evidence to suggest those were a no try and a try respectively.

2. Only in RL could we have a rule such as BOD, issues such as tries need to be decided by clear rules, not an interpretation that changes by ref, and even within a game. No other sport that wants to be taken seriously would introduce a rule that is so difficult to argue with as it is all down to opinion.

The Ainscough one, was a clear no try.

I always try to judge a VR decision by swapping it round and thinking what I would have felt had the decision had to have been made the other way around.

eg.

Lulu try - I thought that Ainscough was offside (if only slightly) and would have been mad as hell if Leeds had scored it and it would have been allowed.

Hock try - this board would have been up in arms had Leeds scored that try and it been allowed. The problems lies in the fact that the obstruction rule is a complete mess and I don't think anyone, and that includes the refs, know how to interpret the rule correctly.

Peacock try - Had it been Fielden I would have gutted to see a decision any other than TRY.

Therefore in my opinion as hard as it may be to take I think they got all 3 decisions correct.

The best way to avoid BOD is to prevent the opposition team crossing your line! If we start giving BOD to defence then we run the risk of turning SL into NRL.

Yes I can agree with pretty much all of that. Leeds are a long, long way from being anything special at the moment. I thought Wigan were truly awful on the night and Leeds while better than that made far too many errors to be classed as anything other than ordinary.

Skill levels are pretty poor this season so far and I've yet to see a game that was anything other than mediocre.

Hopefully it'll improve as the season goes on for all of us.

Oh and Peacock's waited five months for that decision after the one in the play off game went Wigan's way.

I'm afraid I disagree with most of this.

Lulu try - correct decision, no try.

Hock try - have we really, as a game, come to the point where a player who knows he cannot make a tackle has only to throw himself at a stationary player in order to get a perfectly worked try disallowed! ) another player for this decision to be given. Now all a player has to do is launch himself at a stationary player in order to get a perfectly worked try disallowed! That's a pathetic interpretation of the rule IMO and I'm not sure how we, as a game, have come to accept it.

Just one question. Do you think the Leeds defender would have prevented the try had O'Loughlin not been there? I doubt he would have even got a hand to Hock let alone effected the tackle on a player in full flight! That should be the sole arbiter of whether he was obstructed or not.

I'd need to at least have a few more looks to judge on that one. As I said before though had the Wigan dummy runner continued his run through the line then there would have been no problem. It's a coached tactic for the dummy runner to halt around the gain line/defensive line to create a block and open a hole in the defence. While Ablett certainly made the most of the block, the Wigan player being stationary there minding his own business as it were, gave the struggling defender an easy way out.

True. But that's exactly what's wrong with giving these decisions to the defender throwing themselves at a stationary opponent. There should be nowhere to hide on a rugby field. If he wasn't up to the task at hand (which he wasn't) he/his side should pay the penalty. There was no infringement or hinderence to him making the tackle had he spotted the break early enough. He didn't and was left floundering. Giving players this 'soft option' is, as I said earlier, making a mockery of the rule.

And on the other side of the same coin Wigan's dummy runner was needlessly stood still in the defensive line, causing his own team a problem as it turned out, so it cuts both ways.

At least simple crossing with no defender in touching distance is no longer the automatic penalty that it once was although occasionally it's still blown up.

In a way, you're right. In pretty much all of our league games this season, we've been there to be done over.

It therefore begs the question why have five teams, all of whom work under the same regulations and restrictions that Leeds work under, been incapable of doing it?

from your posts crusher i can see you really love your team! and fair do's to ya. but this post is born out of great disapointment with your own team and non of it is really true.

every team in every professional sport are coached to play the rules to there own advantage.

you change the law and coaches in defence or attack will find a new way to bend them.