What's Bentham got to do with it?

The score was 20-16, a four point difference.

Pick where that four points came from,

a) Bailey's push on Logan Tomkins, result a pen and two points.

b) JJ Buchanan's lifting Lauaki's leg and pushing him over, pen and 2 points.

c) Sinfield's poor kick from which Charnley scored a try, four points.

Eight points to Wigan there and all through Leeds' mistakes.

As far as the Mcguire touch down, McDermott agreed that it was the right decision under the rules. He just didn't like the way the rules were applied to his team, that's all.

I agree with this to some respect. Watching 'The Superleague Show' Tony Smith made a good point re Hullgate. He said he would expect the on pitch officials to pick up the offside without the need for the VR



Remember there are 5 games a week without the "so-called" advantage of the VR, and in this case the advantage has clearly failed. Would Thaler have given the try in a non-televised match?



During the Leeds replay I quite clearly heard Silverwood say "play on" as McGuire went behind his player. At the moment it seems the referees are using the video referee way too much for things that in the past would've been expected to be picked up by themselves. As far as Im concerned, the ref made his decision, play on, Leeds scored. There shouldn't have been any possible reason for him to go to the VR. The video ref should be used for try's like Dixons and Watkins superb corner efforts, not for something that happens 10min before on the halfway line which should've been picked up by a touch judge or referee anyway!

It's done, move on. By the letter of the law mcguire infringed, the ref, after hullgate, wanted to make absolutly sure so referred it and the video ref made the right (albeit annoying) call. Had it not been for the stupidity of some of our own players we'd have probably won regardless.



We need to focus on getting back to winning ways now as we are still well in contention for for 2nd place.

I agree but the video ref can't disreguard the black and white rules and use common sense instead. The rules need to be altered to allow a more common sense approach.



Stuart cummings summed it up best in commentary and showed what a straight forwards decision it was.



Was the leeds in the defensive line? yes

did the ball handling player run behind him? yes



No try. Simple.

Can you find the rule that makes it illegal for a player to be in the defensive line, or the rule that states it's illegal to run behind a teammate? I can't. I can find rules that say an obstruction should be penalised, but none that cover running behind a teammate or an attacking player being in the defensive line.

players run behind teammates in every single game. the vast majority are not a penalty as there is no interference. this happened on sunday. common sense says its a try. not one wigan player complained at the time.

i have seen these decisions go for and against us. its a lottery

I'm only going off stuart cummings criteria which he commentated on. There was a 3rd criteria but i can't remember what it was and he said in his opinion it was no try.

So, did Stuart Cummings disregard the rules?

The result was the correct one, Wigan deserved the win.



The only point I would make about the obstruction in relation to the McGuire No Try, is specifically, who was Obstructed? No one was impeded from making a tackle, and no one left a gap as McGuire passed to McShane, he didn't dummy and go through the gap that would have been created by the missing (obstructed) defender. This I think is the point McDermott is making.

you echo my thoughts batley

In my opinion Matty Smith was 'obstructed'. Not obstructed literally but see him hesitate when McGuire goes to pass but runs instead. If McGuire passes when he should then Matty Smith has every chance of making the tackle on McShane.



All IMHO of course.