Can Someone Explain A Couple Of Rules To Me?

[turf]

Although why things are compared to sliced bread is beyond me :conf:

1 - I didn't bring sliced bread into it, you did.

2 - Not a complete reversal. Anyway, all of us (I bet) coming away from the game last night shared my first opinion of Klein - that he was cr*p.

I have had the opportunity to review the tape again (with great pleasure) and I apologise to Klein, as I was harshly treating him at the game.

I would say that at the moment, the form referee in SL is Klein.

He had a good game with Australia/New Zealand last week and now again this week he has another fine game with Wigan/Warrington.

Take a bow Ashley Klein. :eusa2: :eusa2:

[FROM A TO B]

I was just using my loaf

[turf]

I was just using my loaf

As was I

[warrior till i die]

we got the penalty because it was ruled that the wire player obstructed Barrett so therefore penalty defence.

[pedro]

we got the penalty because it was ruled that the wire player obstructed Barrett so therefore penalty defence.

bad call then as he didnt

[Mike]

There was no way that should have been given as obstruction. Its totally ridiculous - by that ruling any dummy runner with 20 metres of the player with the ball, or in any area that the ball eventually ends up in is obstruction. Bentham had a mare of a game. Fortunately we benefited this time, but on another day we won't if he is not put straight.

[GeoffN]

we got the penalty because it was ruled that the wire player obstructed Barrett so therefore penalty defence.

Yeah but as turf pointed out, Barrett was a metre offside, so if that was the case it should have been a penalty to Wire.

I'm sticking with the "incorrect PTB" theory, unless Cummings says different. That would been the "first offence", so it wouldn't matter what Barrett was doing, or whether he was obstructed.

I know they rarely penalise that, these days, but the Wire player clearly never went anywhere near it with his foot.