not that it made any difference in the end but i thought he was unlucky to see it chalked off, peacock had nowhere to go and i've seen plenty of similar ones given

Was that what it was chalked off for? I haven't seen it again so don't know, but I assumed it was for the play the ball because I saw nothing wrong at all with anything else. Even it was for the play the ball he motioned with his foot, albeit a token effort.

Either way, I thought it was a bizarre decision.

I think the remaining shreds of credibility Steve Ganson was clutching at blew away in the wind last night. I initially thought it was for not playing the ball properly even though he had made an attempt which is the requirement.

What is the difference between scooting out of dummy half and crashing over the line from dummy half?

It was for "Obstruction" by Peacock. I was quite surprised to see that as the reason for it being chalked off. There's a brand of No.9 who make careers off tries like that. I thought McShane had a very composed game, he's really taking his chance with both hands.

Cummings thought it was a try and couldn't see anything wrong. Ganson saw an obstruction and the "real expert" Jon Wells, gave it a special name that they have in Australia ("tunnelling" or something like that - where you burrow through the legs of the player playing the ball - even though McShane actually went to the side of Peacock).

I wait to watch, knowing with 100% certainty, that an exactly similar try will be awarded in the next few weeks live on Sky (probably to Wigan) after the refs have gone away and re-interpreted the rules.

Ganson was tracking the wrong player.

I thought it was a try all day long.

How's McShane going for you this season, i really enjoyed watch him at Widnes last season?

No doubt in the coming weeks someone will have a very similiar try given, by ganson, probably wigan.

It was disallowed for boring (Aussie term) There was one disallowed over the weekend in Australia (I think it was Brisbane) for exactly the same offence. Basically it's the dummy half using the player who has just played the ball as a shield, and he is not allowed to make contact with that player.

Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.

Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.

It's as if they're desperately looking for reasons not to give a try.

Quite.
Wigan have been the beneficiaries of one try disallowed against them in one match and one try allowed for them in another match this season ... but where the "obstruction" was virtually identical.
In both games (IIRC) the result was very close and those decisions could well have been the decider.

couldn't have put it better myself. Inevitable!

I've given up even trying to predict whether a try will be given or not when obstruction is involved

Quote ="El Barbudo"Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.'" Last night was simply poor marker defence, McShane went to the side of Peacock and there was nobody on the line to tackle him. Previous controller of referees says try, current controller of referees says obstruction.

Quote ="El Barbudo"Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.'" Last night was simply poor marker defence, McShane went to the side of Peacock and there was nobody on the line to tackle him. Previous controller of referees says try, current controller of referees says obstruction.

Further to my post earlier, here's another specific about obstruction that the refs seem to ignore ...
[i"Player in possession- =#FF0000The player who is in possession of the ball cannot be guilty of obstruction. He can make use of the goal posts to avoid a tackle, or dodge behind a ruck of his own players or bore a way through his own pack."[/i

The key words here are that the player in possession CANNOT be guilty of obstruction.
Hence, for Ganson to be correct, Peacock would have to have obstructed ... and I don't see how, in playing the ball straightforwardly, he can have obstructed in this sense, any more than a goalpost could be guilty of obstruction.

Ganson wrong .... again.

Let them have top spot. 1st and second are pretty much identical the only difference is, if you both do what you should you don't have club call.

The obstruction rule and its many interpretations is just terrible. It should be a simple rule, but it has somehow been complicated to such an extent that it doesn’t work. It is a rule currently being refereed to a nonsense. It has interpretations that may sound like they work, and may sound consistent in the classroom but it is an absolute nonsense when on the field.

The obstruction rule should be very very simple, has, in the referees opinion, someone on the ball carriers team obstructed a potential tackler.

Clearly Sideshow Steve has got itchy feet now he's not being the centre of attention in the middle any more.

Hence the decision to wire up the VR for sound on the Challenge Cup coverage and his insistence on making at least one bat decision per round.

The scary thing is, he's in charge of developing the next generation of match officials.

Looks like Keiron Cunningham got out at the right time.

Pound to a penny the official explanation on Twitter will be that it was an incorrect play the ball and that Bentham gave the wrong signal.

Anything to cover up their own incompetence.

god ive forgotten the last time i saw a real PtB, so 99%of tries in the last 6 seasons should be chalked off...

Isn't the ruling that they must attempt to play the ball with their foot, even if it doesn't touch as long as they attempt (which peacock did) then it's ok? If they just roll it under without moving their foot to play it then it's incorrect?

The officials also missed 2 blatant offsides near the tryline after a knock on for both widnes and leeds, which even the commentators noticed.

The offciating is far too inconsistent and incompetent and it get's exposed year and after year with little change.

I'm literally in awe that after 15 years we've only had 1/2 f*ck ups in the grand final.

My understanding was that the video ref can't go back and rule on the play the ball. I remeber when the VR was first introduced, they made a ruling on that to prevent the VR going back too far and disallowing otherwise good tries for the play ball.

I think Ganson got it wrong - Peacock can't disappear, he didn't move into anyone, and McShane didn't go through his legs, he went to the side of Peacock, and a defender pushed Peacock over McShane.

I think Ganson was probably a little unsure which way to go with the call, and the slightly dodgy PTB convinced him to go with No Try.

To clear up alot of the mess with VR decisions (particularly 50/50's) we should adopt the NRL approach. The on field ref makes a call on whether they think it's a try or not, and the VR can only overturn that decision if there is conclusive proof the ref is wrong. This way, the 50/50 calls go with the gut instinct of the ref who saw it at normal pace - that to me is a much more natural outcome and also reduces the diffence in standards between games that have a VR present and those that don't. In both cases the on field ref makes the call, simply at televised games, he can have that call verified.

I agree. In the NFL the rule on the field stands unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn it.

The Video Ref can

1. Uphold the refs call (the on field call was conclusively correct)
2. Let the play stand as called (no conclusive evidence to overturn)
3. Overturn it.

It will also make referees get back into the habit of making simple decisions without kopping out to the video ref. On both recent calls that have been wrong against us IMO (this one and the Magic weekend obstruction) there was no justification for the ref to refer the call to the video. Both refs on the field saw exactly what happened and were perfectly placed
.