I think it's a harsh but fair call from the video ref, you can see the hand on Brough so it is fair for me. I think the Huddersfield try disallowed for obstruction was very harsh, no video ref it would have been a try; lucky for Leeds in the end.

But it came after Hudds were incorrectly awarded a scrum after Crabtree knocked on so not that lucky really.

Didn't ground it anyway!

Suspicion of a forward pass too (although I haven't seen replay - just going on what I saw at ground)

Shouldn't have had the scrum anyway so you can give over with that

But equally, two wrongs do not make a right! The whole interpretation of the obstruction law is ruining the spectacle of the game but equally that is being in turn driven by a video ref system and procedure that is in desperate need of an overhaul. It is no longer fit for purpose. There should be a crisis meeting and a new video ref procedure agreed between officials and coaches. I would suggest we adopt the NRL system of the ref making a call either way and then asking for a specific aspect or aspects to be looked at. The video ref can then only look at these aspects and then only to disprove the ref initial call.



I understand from twitter that Silverwood asked Ganson & Bentham to look at everything, this is just not acceptable IMO. I bet had Silverwood been forced to be specific, he might have said on side off side, ward knock on and the grounding. I very much doubt he would have asked them to look at Briscoe obstructing Brough.



Equally, as I understand the NRL system, Silverwood would have had to be specific, so he could not say did either player obstruct each other or just look at instruction prior to the grounding please, he would have to ask did Briscoe obstruct Brough in getting to the ball.



I tweeted after the Hudds obstruction that the officiating of this game was a farce... I stand by that!

That's exactly why the NRL has changed the video ref system. Firstly the onfield ref has to make the call of try/no try and the video ref can only overrule when there's clear evidence the ref is wrong. Its working far better IMO, because previously video refs were clearly looking for the smallest reason to call no try, and it also reduces pressure on the video ref to analyse everything to the nth degree.



Benefit of the doubt also needs to be applied in all cases - again you have to find positive reasons for ruling it out.



Obstruction's gone through several turns of the wheel here. At one stage attacking sides were clearly using dummy runners to interefere with defenders, without necessarily touching them. Then it went to the opposite extreme where in order to make it 'black & white' any and all intereference, no matter how far from play, was ruled out. The problem then became defenders running into dummy runners on purpose, or at least towards them and then throwing their arms in the air when they clearly made no attempt to get involved in actually stopping the play.



The pendulum swung back (thankfully), but I think Phil Gould is right in suggesting that ONLY the on-field refs should be able to rule on obstruction, as they get one view at normal speed, and are best placed to get a sense of what happened.

It was an absurd decision. I could understand it being disallowed on the grounding, even incorrectly. But for it to be for Briscoe shoving Brough is just ridiculous.



The Broughton no-try decision was even worse, FWIW.

The video ref has ruined the game of Rugby League, thanks Sky!

Its not the VR, its how its used. Refs using it as a crutch to avoid making a call leads to all the pressure being on the VR. As a result they will endlessly review and replay because whilst the on-field ref can always stand by what they thought they saw, the VR knows everything they see can - and will - be scuritinised by every man and his dog afterwards.



Thats why the ref should make the call, which must stand unless the VR has definitive evidence to the contrary. They should also ALWAYS give benfit of the doubt to the attacking team, and some issues such as obstruction shouldn't be viewed in slow motion at all.



I think most fans can accept refereeing errors when they're made live. When endless replays still prove nothing then judgement has to come in to play - and that belongs to the on-field ref IMO.

It dont help when the SKY 'experts' question every little thing either. When the ref gave Sutcliffe's try without refering it upstairs last night Stevo was 'absolutely convinced' Moon was offside when tipping the kick back and couldnt beleive it hadn't gone to the VR. He went on about it for the next 2 minutes until the front on shot showed Moon to be about 3 yards onside and the ref spot on.It's little wonder the refs have zero confidence in making decisions in live games when they can get somebody else to take the responsibility.

I've said for ages I would love the entire VR set-up to be scrapped. Some may like it, for me it offers absolutely nothing in terms of enhancing the game. I don't think we played well enough to deserve the win and FWIW the last play "try" is only a point for debate because Hudds' earlier effort was ruled out. So, this aint a knee-jerk rant against the officials made on the basis of last nights game, it's more of an observation on the silly spectacle that the game is becoming. But if the powers that be want to turn the game into a vehicle for endless TV replays, pandering only to those who can't be ar_sed attending games, then crack on.