Having just watched the Wigan Leeds match, I'd like to know how such a glaringly obvious non obstruction resulted in Leeds being denied at least a point & probably a win against wigan by having their try chalked off?

Surely the VR should be sacked, named & shamed in a worldwide media hunt/campaign to have him removed from the sport and banned for life from any involvement in sports elsewhere (afterall a judgement like that is akin to drug taking to gain an advantage is it not

), Absolute disgrace & for lowering the credibility of rugby league should be put in the stocks & pilloried at the very least..
After various angles and being able to see clearly that the on field referee call at the time to "play on" was correct at the time & could be seen by all that there was no infringement, how on earth is this man (Smith) still in a job...I feel absolute (faux) disgust on behalf of the Leeds club whom were robbed..
Discuss..lmfao

Someone's started drinking early...

Not sure he stopped tbh.

He has a point about that try though imo. Not an obstruction for mine.

Well McGuire runs behind his team mate who is stood in the defensive line. It's an obstruction by the letter of the law, but true it didn't affect the play.

The thing is the exact same thing happened in Wigan's attack about 5 minutes later and nothing was given. Seems to be one of those rules that only applies if a try is scored and the VR is present. The consistency is the annoying part.

Agreed.

Spot on. The video referees are clearly looking for a reason not to give a try.

I thought one of the worst decisions (except the Hull try) was disallowing Broughtons try. Awful decision and a travesty that was disallowed!

Spot on. The video referees are clearly looking for a reason not to give a try.

I thought one of the worst decisions (except the Hull try) was disallowing Broughtons try. Awful decision and a travesty that was disallowed!

Both the Broughton and McGuire tries were disallowed by the letter of law, but not by the letter of common sense.

On the disallowed Broghton try, where does "benefit of the doubt" come in?
While I agree Gaskell threw his arm out across the defender (can't remember who it was now), surely there must be a judgement as to whether the defender could have got close enough to Broughton to tackle him - IMHO not a cat in hell's chance!
But I think after the Ganson faux-pas then every VR decision was going to be super cautious.

There's also the issue of Gaskell being allowed to run a line of his choosing as a support runner. I think the problem was the fact he leaned in on the defender and put his arm across.

With the McGuire one, as mentioned its the lack of consistency that's annoying. And I can almost guarantee that similar situations will go unpenalised in the future.
It also annoys me a bit when refs go that far back when referring it to the video ref. In my opinion he's already made his decision on the incident by allowing play to continue. If McGuire had been tackled by Tomkins and Leeds scored off the next play then the VR couldn't have been used.

Absolutely. Can we expect all incidences of running behind the man to be penalised? No



If you listen to the commentary, as McGuire runs behind the man, Silverwood clearly calls "play on" then has second thoughts after the try was scored. That alone should mean the VR shouldn't be used. He saw nothing wrong and then, hang on, he did. Ridiculous.

Agreed. If Silverwood had given the penalty as McGuire runs behind his own man then ok, maybe a tad harsh but a decision made and not an entirely unreasonable one. But in this case the VR has effectively overruled the on-field ref's decision.