Tonight's Game/Wigan squad for Leigh

[Mike]

I didn't see the game live or on TV. What's the honest view on the two disallowed tries? Was Leigh's more deserving than Wigan's?

Ours was obstruction, theirs wasn’t.
Was glad theirs was disallowed seen as it was gilly who scored it

Agreed. Our runner impacted the outside shoulder of the defender before getting through the line which is obstruction. Their runner impacted the inside shoulder and didn't impede the defence. Ours was obstruction and there's should have been given. Glad it wasn't though!

[Charriots Offiah]

The Nsemba run wasn't obstruction. He clearly goes through the line and the Leigh player attempts to grab him as he goes through which is the only reason there is contact. If it weren't for his defensive misread he could have comfortably avoided Nsemba. Not only that but Field is yards behind the play! In fact, the Leigh player almost gets to Field anyway and I'd strongly suggest that he would have made the tackle on any other player in the league apart from Field.

Another point that seems to be being ignored; had the Field try been given as it should have been, then Leigh don't get the penalty and don't score their try. Instead, they'd have been kicking possession back to us 10 points down.

I couldn't find the Superleague rules but this is from the NRL rules and we play the same obstruction rule:

5. Defensive decisions that commit defender[s] to initiating contact with an attacking player(s) will not be deemed obstruction

Firstly I don't know the rules inside out I admit. I did think that the reason given on Sky about "inside vs outside shoulder" was nonsense.

This would suggest it is.......and these guys get paid to know the rules...............

If we believed everything the Sky commentary team said last night then Bevan French is Harry Smith, Jake Wardle is Toby King, the match was being played at Wigan and Brian Carney thought his interview with Liam Marshall was with Liam Farrell....and they are just the ones I can remember

Bill Arthur constantly makes errors.

[pedro]

I didn't see the game live or on TV. What's the honest view on the two disallowed tries? Was Leigh's more deserving than Wigan's?

Ours was obstruction, theirs wasn’t.
Was glad theirs was disallowed seen as it was gilly who scored it

Agreed. Our runner impacted the outside shoulder of the defender before getting through the line which is obstruction. Their runner impacted the inside shoulder and didn't impede the defence. Ours was obstruction and there's should have been given. Glad it wasn't though!

Disagree, their player even put his bumpers up as he touched French, was minimal contact but was full frontal contact, I thought ours was a bad defensive read as Junior went through and their defender went for him not contact made on him, but if both of them got disallowed Wardles should have been disallowed also, the ref had a nightmare

[Suzieb]

Let's put this game to bed now and look forward to winning the final we will do it whatever team we put out and whatever referee we have come on two games to go.

[Flash]

I didn't see the game live or on TV. What's the honest view on the two disallowed tries? Was Leigh's more deserving than Wigan's?

Ours was obstruction, theirs wasn’t.
Was glad theirs was disallowed seen as it was gilly who scored it

Agreed. Our runner impacted the outside shoulder of the defender before getting through the line which is obstruction. Their runner impacted the inside shoulder and didn't impede the defence. Ours was obstruction and there's should have been given. Glad it wasn't though!

Obstruction is a matter of opinion. Show 2 referees the same incident and you can get 2 different conclusions, never mind 2 fans.

However there are certain things that are indisputable. One being that if the defender initiates contact, then it is no obstruction according to the rules, regardless of the decision actually given on the day. The Leigh player clearly steps to the left into the space Nsemba has also clearly run into, therefore initiating contact. Therefore inside/outside shoulder becomes an irrelevance according to the rules.

If that is your only reason for deeming it obstruction then it isn't a valid one.

Or to put it another way; you would have also given the incorrect decision on the day

[Mike]

Ours was obstruction, theirs wasn’t.
Was glad theirs was disallowed seen as it was gilly who scored it

Agreed. Our runner impacted the outside shoulder of the defender before getting through the line which is obstruction. Their runner impacted the inside shoulder and didn't impede the defence. Ours was obstruction and there's should have been given. Glad it wasn't though!

Obstruction is a matter of opinion. Show 2 referees the same incident and you can get 2 different conclusions, never mind 2 fans.

However there are certain things that are indisputable. One being that if the defender initiates contact, then it is no obstruction according to the rules, regardless of the decision actually given on the day. The Leigh player clearly steps to the left into the space Nsemba has also clearly run into, therefore initiating contact. Therefore inside/outside shoulder becomes an irrelevance according to the rules.

If that is your only reason for deeming it obstruction then it isn't a valid one.

Or to put it another way; you would have also given the incorrect decision on the day

Fair enough. At the time I didn't see the contact as initiated by the defender, rather they were covering a potential ball runner and then looking to slide. In that scenario the impact point is relevant. I'll take another look and see if I think the defender initiates the contact. You're right it's all judgement for sure!

I think we all agree that if the Leigh try goes up as a try it stays as a try though. The VR wasn't going to overturn that either way IMO.

[pedro]

Agreed. Our runner impacted the outside shoulder of the defender before getting through the line which is obstruction. Their runner impacted the inside shoulder and didn't impede the defence. Ours was obstruction and there's should have been given. Glad it wasn't though!

Obstruction is a matter of opinion. Show 2 referees the same incident and you can get 2 different conclusions, never mind 2 fans.

However there are certain things that are indisputable. One being that if the defender initiates contact, then it is no obstruction according to the rules, regardless of the decision actually given on the day. The Leigh player clearly steps to the left into the space Nsemba has also clearly run into, therefore initiating contact. Therefore inside/outside shoulder becomes an irrelevance according to the rules.

If that is your only reason for deeming it obstruction then it isn't a valid one.

Or to put it another way; you would have also given the incorrect decision on the day

Fair enough. At the time I didn't see the contact as initiated by the defender, rather they were covering a potential ball runner and then looking to slide. In that scenario the impact point is relevant. I'll take another look and see if I think the defender initiates the contact. You're right it's all judgement for sure!

I think we all agree that if the Leigh try goes up as a try it stays as a try though. The VR wasn't going to overturn that either way IMO.

yes, i think ours does too but he didnt get that far

[Flash]

Agreed. Our runner impacted the outside shoulder of the defender before getting through the line which is obstruction. Their runner impacted the inside shoulder and didn't impede the defence. Ours was obstruction and there's should have been given. Glad it wasn't though!

Obstruction is a matter of opinion. Show 2 referees the same incident and you can get 2 different conclusions, never mind 2 fans.

However there are certain things that are indisputable. One being that if the defender initiates contact, then it is no obstruction according to the rules, regardless of the decision actually given on the day. The Leigh player clearly steps to the left into the space Nsemba has also clearly run into, therefore initiating contact. Therefore inside/outside shoulder becomes an irrelevance according to the rules.

If that is your only reason for deeming it obstruction then it isn't a valid one.

Or to put it another way; you would have also given the incorrect decision on the day

Fair enough. At the time I didn't see the contact as initiated by the defender, rather they were covering a potential ball runner and then looking to slide. In that scenario the impact point is relevant. I'll take another look and see if I think the defender initiates the contact. You're right it's all judgement for sure!

I think we all agree that if the Leigh try goes up as a try it stays as a try though. The VR wasn't going to overturn that either way IMO.

Agreed Mike. I think both could have been given by a different ref which, I suppose, is the point I make regarding it being a matter of opinion.

The only caveat that I would like to add, as I said in an earlier post, is that had the Wigan try been given the Leigh one would never have happened anyway.

[Firestarter]

Is it not time to just replay the play rather than give a pen for obstruction? Leigh gained a massive advantage for us trying a set move.Surely its no good for the game to be penalises for a set play? Granted if it’s dangerous then a pens the way

[WarriorWinger]

The Nsemba run wasn't obstruction. He clearly goes through the line and the Leigh player attempts to grab him as he goes through which is the only reason there is contact. If it weren't for his defensive misread he could have comfortably avoided Nsemba. Not only that but Field is yards behind the play! In fact, the Leigh player almost gets to Field anyway and I'd strongly suggest that he would have made the tackle on any other player in the league apart from Field.

Another point that seems to be being ignored; had the Field try been given as it should have been, then Leigh don't get the penalty and don't score their try. Instead, they'd have been kicking possession back to us 10 points down.

I couldn't find the Superleague rules but this is from the NRL rules and we play the same obstruction rule:


Firstly I don't know the rules inside out I admit. I did think that the reason given on Sky about "inside vs outside shoulder" was nonsense.

This would suggest it is.......and these guys get paid to know the rules...............

Basically an inside shoulder is the shoulder of the defender that is on the opposite side to the direction the ball is being passed i.e. If the ball is being passed left to right then the inside shoulder is the defenders right shoulder, the outside would be the left which is the direction the defender would have to move to track the ball, if the dummy runner runs on the outside shoulder they could get in the way of the defenders run and therefore could be an obstruction if the dummy runner makes contact withe the defender.
I have not watched the game back but thought the defender grabbed at junior and should have Ben play on, likewise I thought gildarts should have been a try as the dummy run was on the inside shoulder