The Huby/Cuthbertson 'obstruction' is simple for me. Huby stops in the line after the ball has gone west and honestly does step into Cuthbertson, but by the time the play comes back round Huby is walking back while for some reason Cuthbertson is pretending he's made of velcro and looks to want to keep walking into Huby in a terrible attempt to look as though he's been held back, he had plenty of opportunity to step right and go for Wardle, instead he decided to be lazy.

Correct. If creative players are not allowed to make some mistakes then prepare to say farewell to the very thing that makes our game so special. McGuire had the 'head up' ability to see the opportunity to change the momentum that was against us and like some of Sinfield's plays it did not come off. I will not knock him for taking the pivotal responsibility.

like the 03 cup final?

The thing with the obstruction rule is that it has so stupidly complicated when it should be pretty simple. Huby Obstructed Cuthbertson, of that there is no doubt. Huby's presence in the defensive line stopped Cuthbertson taking the easiest route to the player, could Cuthbertson have overcome that obstacle? yes, could he have taken a different route? yes, could he have taken action to avoid being obstructed? yes. But none of those are his job. It is Hubys job not to obstruct, not Cuthbertsons not be obstructed.



The obstruction rule is, to me, a highlight of everything that is wrong with our officiating.Its a rule written as a checklist so the referee doesn't have to think or know the game to give it. The problem is it is also written with enough wiggle room so that when the ref and VR do screw up they can be defended.



It was interesting to note that neither Clarke nor Carney, the two players, had any doubt whatsoever it was obstruction. Because to a player it was obstruction. It looked like obstruction, it felt like obstruction. Cummings had to look and find an excuse why it wasn't obstruction. So has everyone else. Every defence of it is, even yours is yeah Huby obstructed but.....



And that is unnecessary, the complication around obstruction is unnecessary, and the stupid thing is despite all this nonsense they have surrounded the obstruction rule with it still isn't close to being a consistently applied rule (see the earlier obstruction given against Hardaker where nobody was obstructed)



Obstruction is a simple rule, did the player go through a gap created by his colleagues presence in the defensive line?

Well at least it evened out our try after a blatant knock on by Ablett.

1,285 Leeds fans officially, thought there would be more but thanks to those who did come Thursday nights are crap for fans

I think had Cuthbertson made an attempt to tackle then it would of been a no try. but he really did milk it. try to make the tackle if youre unsuccessful there must be a reason why... Because Huby ran in to him.... but alas he stood there flapping.



i think it still should of been a no try because he was obstructed and how could cuthbertson make a decision on where to go when he cant see the ball due to a hudds player/ but he made a meal of it and it cost us 6 pts.

having seen the huby/cuthbertson incident, to me , yes huby should have run through the line, but there was still enough time for cuthbertson to make the tackle, for me, an obstruction is when the attacking player prevents the defender from making a tackle, although huby was in the defensive line he didn't stop cuthbertson making the tackle, cuthbertson chose not to make the tackle on wardle and instead stayed behind huby in the hope it would be chalked off.



he had plenty of time to make the tackle but chose not to, that's how i saw it, although i do agree that huby shouldn't have been in there it didn't affect cuthbertson's ability to tackle wardle.. poor play from the leeds man i'm afraid

In an ideal world I'd agree with you but unfortunately with our reffing you've got to make a fuss of things or you won't get a penalty.



If Cuthbertson hadn't made a meal of it then Silverwood wouldnt even have referred it to the VR. He'd just have given a try, as the likelihood is that Cuthbertson might make a tackle but not a good enough one to stop the player.



We see it all the time, especially at the play the ball, that you've got to make a meal of playing the ball in order to get a penalty for interference or holding down.



The VR got it completely wrong and yet again that imbecile Stuart Cummings desperately justifies it by making things up.

yeah i see your point and i thought it should of been chalked off, but feel his pantomimes didnt help. but yeah, who actually knows which rules the refs will use week on week?

In my opinion the VR is a waste of time. Far from resolving controversial decisions it has heightened them. Until you get objective rather than subjective decisions made by infallible human beings (impossible) then what's the point?

except it wasn't obvious. took a slow motion replay to see it. can understand why it was missed.

and two wrongs don't make a right in most peoples worlds