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.

It was turned down under the laws of the game.
Match officials use the rules although they often do upset people, sometimes when they are right and also when they are wrong, obviously.

Unless we reserve VR for grounding of the ball and 'foot in touch' only, this is pretty much unavoidable. We wouldn't want VR on every play, so refs have to make a judgement call. Most will err slightly on the side of 'play on' in situations like Sunday. The alternative would be awful (stopping the game for every suspicion of a problem). Once you go to the VR though, it pretty much has to go to 'letter of the law'. I'm a Wigan fan, but admit I'd have been annoyed the other way round. However, I think the balance is about right. It obviously throws up an inevitable inconsistency between the level of scrutiny on a try scoring play versus a 'normal' play, but I can't think of an adjustment to the system which would make it any more optimal than it is now.

I don't think most Leeds fans are too annoyed, as McGuire did run round his own man. It's more the lack of consistency that's annoying.

Plus, after the last couple of weeks and with a few injuries, we were expecting a bit of a hammering. So I think most Leeds fans were quite pleased!

Got to admit even as a Wigan fan I thought it was a harsh call, albeit by the letter of the law the correct one.

Thing is, Leeds fans might feel it's an overzealous application of the laws but had the try been allowed Wigan fans would have been perfectly entitled to ask why the laws were ignored completely.

All things considered, which is the preferable option? Apply the laws or ignore them?

Absolutely the question to ask, but my gripe as a rugby fan is the call of play on then the change of mind. The refs job is to recognise infringements, not have a think 20 seconds later. If he was applying the laws, it was a penalty when it happened. Or it wasn't, as he thought.

Oh I agree, and I think this is where the clash occurs when we want referees to let games 'flow' rather than blowing up at every offence possible.

In any normal (non-scoring) passage of play the infringement would probably have been whinged at by the crowd but forgotten by the next tackle - in this case Thaler calls 'play on' as it appears to be a minor offence and doesn't actually affect the passage of play. However, that passage of play then ends with a try being scored and when being reviewed by the Video Ref it can't be ignored.

It was a spot on decision as was the Broughton no try

It's a fine line but in both cases the attacking side crossed it
Hansen was impeded when McGuire ran begin his own player, simple as that the only error is that it wasn't called immediately

The ball carrier can't run behind his own man, especially when his own man is stood within touching distance in the defensive line.

Can you tell me where it says in the laws of the game that the ball carrier can't run behind his own man? By my reading of the rules it says specifically that he can dodge behind his own players. Obstruction has nothing to do with what the ball carrier does and everything to do with what his team mates do. In this case I felt that the Leeds player made a legitimate dummy run directly at the defensive line ( not at an angle across McGuire) and, if my memory serves correctly, was virtually stationary when Hanson made contact. McGuire didnt pass the ball (the whole point of dummy runners) and, quite legally, ran behind his team mate. No obstruction for me. Of course these things are judgement calls: the VR made his decision and we all know that the VR can't make mistakes don't we.

And again that's my issue - the ref shouldn't be having second thoughts about something he's let go earlier in a play. If he let it go, why ask the video ref to look at it?

Perhaps the VR should just be looking at grounding when the onfield ref is unsighted, knock-ons, and (cough) offsides. If the onfield ref is happy to let a play go, he shouldn't be allowed to go back.

I bet they make a hell of a lot less mistakes than fans trying to change the result of a game on a forum

It was obstruction every day of the week.

Am I right in thinking that if for instance the onfield ref goes to the VR and says look at the grounding but during that play another infringement occurs such as a knock on at the ptb that the on ref either missed or didn't think it was. Can the VR say it is a no try scrum defence?

If so then the NRL version should be best used especially as not every game has a VR over here.

Ok so the answer is, no you can't tell me where it says that the ball carrier can't run behind one of his own players. Thanks.

Thank God you're here. For 30 years I've been watching referees blow up for this offence.

Quick, tweet @RFLReferees and let them know they've been wrong all along.

I've been watching nearly twice as long and I think that the interpretation of this offence has changed in, possibly, the last ten years. But, as you probably can't tell me what the offence actually was either (please don't say McGuire ran behind his own player) I think I've made my point and I'll bow out. Thanks for your contribution.

It has? Any evidence to back that up or just your hazy recollections?


The offence was obstruction. That's what Silverwood asked for and what was given.

As Cummings explained at the time, "what we're looking for is: is the player in the defensive line (yes), did he run behind him (yes), is it close proximity (yes), does it have an effect on the man in front of him (yes - Hansen)"

He then goes on to say, "for me it's quite simple, he's run behind his own man in the defensive line and therefore it should be a penalty." If the dummy runner had carried on through the defensive line and out of the way it wouldn't have been an offence.

Silverwood, via the @RFLReferees twitter, has said in response to queries on the decision: "Rules state you can’t run behind your own man in close proximity to the defensive line which is what happened."

As I originally said, I thought it was a minor offence and a harsh call - but the correct call. A minor obstruction is still an obstruction, just as a minor knock-on is still a knock-on.

Happy to clear that up for you. Thanks for your contribution.

The Leeds player was not interfering with the play, McGuire was hard done by IMO. I wonder if the previous day had made the VR over cautious. Shaun Wane is a lot 'harder' than Sandercock !!!!

...but would you say he was 'harder' than Brian McDermott?