Yep.


1 - I haven't seen it again but I thought he grubbered it too, but then that happens in plenty of "low" drop outs, not to mention kicking it from in front of the try line.

2 - It was the strangest attempt at kicking the ball back to a team mate I've seen if that's the case, he didn't make contact with the ball either. Should've been a penalty at least.

3 - No it wasn't. Because it wasn't a run around. It was a pass, followed by an inside return pass, followed by the ball carrier running behind his own player. That's not a run around. For it to be a run around the player "running around" (was it Smith?) needs to be much further "around" the man before he gets the return pass.

I can accept that, but not the "he intentionally ran over to trip him up" argument. I will have to look at it again but i don't think his foot made contact with chase did it, he did clatter into him but its just two players going for a 50-50 ball. Also thats not the first time chase has done that for a drop out.

Yep, IIRC it's only 7th & 8th placed that aren't guaranteed at least 1 home playoff game.

Let's start with the original topic. SOL tried to kick the ball backwards, missed and took Chase instead, yes it should have been a penalty but 'football tackles' , bit OTT. As others have pointed out the 'drop out' wasn't drop kicked. I'm not sure whether that should have resulted in a penalty or a re-take. Anyone know the rules on that one.

I assume the obstruction people are talking about is in the build up to the Gelling try after half time. If it is then yes it should have been given IMO. If you're talking about the Smith try then you obviously don't know the rules or understand the game. As I said on our board, obstruction seems to have gone full circle this season. Not too long ago we were all complaining too many were given now they are looking for reasons not to give them.

I find it quite amusing on threads like this how most of you love to point out the calls that went in Wigan's favour and ignore the ones that didn't. Griffin stamped on Flower. Not a particularly vicious one admittedly but a stamp it was. Smith was taken out without the ball over the line, there should have been a strong case for a penalty try, if not it should certainly have been a penalty. When I watch the game back I'm sure I could counter the calls that went in Wigan's favour with ones that went in Salfords.

Wigan played reasonably well and ran away with it in the end. We were dominant in the tackle and controlled the play the ball. Salford were very poor, their timing was off, every time they got in a decent position they dropped it and Sau bombed a sitter. The ref did not contribute to the result.

The fact his foot swung back to his own line would imply he was trying to kick it backwards.

your second sentence explains a run around perfectly, catching the ball on the outside shoulder does not apply when the runner has passed the ball.

I don't think O'Loughlin was going full on for a trip, I think he was trying to get his body in between Chase and the ball. Should've been a penalty.
As mentioned Chase didn't drop out properly, I don't know what the rule is, it'd probably be retaken like a 20m tap that isn't performed correctly. Though I'd be happy for it to be a penalty!


Not really, in my opinion. The player "running around" needs to be much further around the player "being run around" than they were. The return pass in a run around is, at least, in the middle of the move, not at the start.


Eastbourne Warrior makes a good point about some decisions that went against Wigan too. The biggest one for me was Smith being taken out over the line. As mentioned a good case for a penalty try.

Lol.

It seems lots of rules don't apply when wearing Cherry & White.

FYI, I wanted, and am very happy with, a Wigan win tonight.

not at all they got the first one spot on, but you can't call obstruction on a run around unless another player has blocked the salford player. Anybody who watches the NRL will see Tigers or the bulldogs do it countless off times.

If you go back to the previous thread regarding obstruction you will my opinion on obstructions be that for or against Wigan.

Do you want to stand by your comment that "catching the ball on the outside shoulder does not apply when the runner has passed the ball."?

The result should be scrubbed from the records and the match replayed. Typical RFL bending over for Wigan.

Another Wigan Sky game, another VT thread on how we get all the luck and decisions.

Standard evening.

same place everyone else has been expected to teleport.

Paranoid much?

Delighted Wigan won...but I can still be objective about specific incidents.

That works both ways too. I don't see many (only 1 actually) fans highlighting the calls that went for Salford. The Penalty try being the best example.

Did Wigan turn up last Sunday?

Correct, it was an attempt at a run around but it wasn't executed properly, when Smith receives the pass he is still a couple of yards to the left of the Wigan player that passed it to him, he then ran, with the ball, around the back of that player. That by the laws of the game is crossing, whether it actually caused an obstruction or not is a different matter. Anyone who thought that was a genuine run around doesn't know what they are talking about.

Hauruki almost crushes another mans skull with his knees ~8 page thread in 6 days.

O'Loughlin makes legitimate challenge for the ball and accidentally takes out a Salford player; 5 page thread within 18 hours.

And they say the VT aren't obsessed with Wigan

To be fair the Hauraki one reached 4 pages in under 24 hours. Also this one would still be 4 pages if not for several messages from different Wigan fans solely posting "VT obsessed with Wigan again" bumping up the number.....much like you just did.

To be fair it's not just Wigan. Leeds attract a similar amount of attention on here.

Yup, I started both threads, illustrating the point in my first thread. This thread was motoring along within hours.

Though it's not suprising, [ithis wiggin team[/i is obviously putting the frightners up a few folk as we head into their territory - trophy time of the season.

Yet Stuart Cummings and the video ref (after several reviews) deemed it legal, and while the on-field ref correctly referred it to be checked, he didn't see anything worth penalising.

I wonder, on balance, who might know the laws better.

Think the Sinfield and Hock incidents actually received more and to be fair, a lot on this thread has actually diversed to discussing crossing/obstruction so its really only 3 and bit pages to be fair...
For the record, I wouldn't put out "obsessed" claims, no team is worth obsessing over, no matter how successful they have been or how annoying their support is - and before anyone thinks I'm having a go at Wigan, I'm not, just talking in general

And yet both Stuart Cummings and the Video Ref have got things wrong in the past.

I think Cummings and the VR both jumped to the conclusion it was a run around without looking at that aspect of it enough.
The run around wasn't executed properly and so resulted in obstruction, in my opinion.

In the same way as many pass out the back plays haven't been executed properly this season and led to obstruction too.

If the players get their plays right they generally won't obstruct. But it's a risk you take when you have players without the ball in front of the ball carrier and in the defensive line.

It's almost unimportant as to whether it was legal or not...it's done.

What is important though is the change in interpretation all of a sudden. That move would have been penalised in every previous TV game this season.

When 3 referees see nothing wrong with it, and 2 of those have had chance to review it several times from several angles, I'm happy to accept they are, on balance, most likely correct.

There have been several occasions where Cummings has disagreed with the game officials. On this they all agreed.

I'll take that over untrained rl fans.