"Some common sense is needed. Every coach and player in the game would have told you that was a try."

Or words to that effect, as spoken on the SL show this evening.

Nice to know it isn't only Wiganers who were left baffled by Silverwood's latest failure and Eddie and Stevo's predictably vociferous support of it (though these days I just laugh whenever those two show their ar2es in public. They must by now be the most well viewed ar2es in the history of the game).

It was an awful decision.

Had Charnley not scored the try then it wouldn't have even been noticed as obstruction, he took it to the video ref just because it has become the done thing for wide plays with lots of runners, the video ref then convinced himself he must chalk it off because there was 'contact'. FFS contact does not have to mean obstruction. It had no impact on the play what so ever.

Its a joke, that sort of thing goes on a lot, only when a try is scored it gets reviewed. If a certain player gets obstructed and the ref doesn't spot it, they may as well let them go and score the try for it to be brought back.

Indeed. You do wonder now whether in certain instances, the VR has become more of a hinderence than a help. I said on the night that had the game not been on TV, the try would have been given without question. Similarly, had the Hudds game been on TV, their second try may have been took to the VR and may have been ruled out for a knock on. You could argue that that is just decisions evening themselves out, but Charnley's try didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things due to the margin of victory, yet the one last week would have affected the outcome of the game.

The obstruction ruling/decisions needs to be sorted out properly because its a joke for everybody at the moment. How can teams do slick passing moves with dummy runners if every time theres contact off the ball its obstruction? Common sense needs to be applied.

Teams are getting away with huge defensive mistakes time and again due to how daft the obstruction ruled is being enforced at the moment.

It doesn't matter anymore when your involved in a Sky game if you make a bad defensive read because aslong as you throw yourself to the ground you'll get away with it.

It was something that really needed looking at but instead they decided to change 'nothing' rules about having to let the ball bounce behind the dead ball line.

Those decisions really get on my nerves. By the letter of the law it was the correct decision but what annoys me is they are only spotted on televised games when they are followed immediately by a try. If Charnley was held up then we scored off the next play there would be no problem! The VR should decide whether the contact actually makes any difference to the outcome, in Fridays case it didn't as JJB was getting nowhere near it.

There was also a really blatant obstruction towards the end of the 1st half where Sinfield ran behind his own man but this didn't result in a try so wasn't picked up.

I can see why the ruling was brought in to stop dummy runners running at defenders and taking them out like NFL. But now it has gone toofar the other way, in that if a player was running at a gap like he was on Saturday night and a defender touches that runner then the try is disallowed for the attacking team for confusing the poor defenders.

Slightly OT but would any one know if Charnley try would have been allowed in the NRL or not?

Yes baz it would have been allowed in the nrl, it would have been classed as a poor defensive read. Hard to explain without drawings but our player received the ball beyond the dummy runners line.

It was the same all last year. SL chalked off tries that stood in the nrl.

I agree, after re-watching the game on sky, it should have stood. However, cant help thinking had the offending player not have ran the angle straight into JJB and used his shoulder, which he did! If he had just passed JJB and not made the blatant contact regardless of whetther JJB was near the ball or not, the VR might have give it.

Again it should have been a try, only bit I disagree with is the poor defensive read. JJB didn't make any attempt to tackle the player who ran into him. JJB did get taken out he didn't try tackle the player. However he would not have got anywhere near charnley or the ball, and for me was a try

Definite try.

Daft decision!