So you do think it was a try? like I do. So we both agree it was a try?



Which rule are we pretending I got wrong?

I do think it was a try, that is barely scratching the surface of what you stated however, lets not kid ourselves and miss things out all the time.



You also stated that the leeds one was also a try, whilst trying to liken what the leeds dummy runner did to what happened with the wigan dummy runner!



Stating it is impossible to say that Tuson wasnt taking up space in which a tackle could have been made. When in fact this is complete and utter rubbish! The defender had made a poor read as tuson was aiming to run through the space inbetween the defenders inside shoulder and the next defender. the defender follows tuson and tackles him when the ball has already been transferred outside of Tuson.



It was a textbook dummy run, he aimed to run through the space, the defender made a poor read and followed him whilst the ball was shipped wide.

Why not make it simple, and go back to the first principles of what it says in the laws of the game?



Stick to those, and penalise obstruction only if a dummy runner does something which impedes a defender.



If the defender makes a bad call, it's his problem. If the dummy runner does nothing to affect the defenders, irrespective of where he stops, or where the ball or the player is at the time, it's play on.



Would make life so much easier for officials, commentators and spectators alike.

I think Cummins' way of putting it was "if the player receives the ball on the inside shoulder of the dummy runner and runs around the back to the outside shoulder, it's obstruction; but if he receives it on the outside shoulder it's fine."



Basically, you can pass behind the dummy runner, but you can't run behind him. It's pretty simple. The incident last night and against Leeds are completely different.

Pretty much spot on.

Well said! Exactly correct.

Yep that's it. Cummings said after watching the McGuire incident only once or twice that it was obstruction and almost straight away last night that it was a fair try. There is clearly a difference and the refs know what it is even if the majority of the RL public(inc. McDermott?) don't.

IIRC McDermott admitted it shouldn't have been a try but at the same time said it should have been given. I think what he was trying to say is be disagrees with the current interpretation in that instance.



The problem with the obstruction rule is there are so many variables that it is impossible to account for them all in the rule book. It simply comes down to does the official believe a defender was prevented or denied the opportunity of effecting a tackle. If yes then it's a penalty, if no then it's not.



Also fans should stop listening to the opinions of Eddie and Stevo who largely make it up as they go along. Actually add Clarke to that list. Cummings has been excellent since he has been on offering a refs viewpoint and knows more about the rules than any of us, Carney and Wells are knowledgeable. I like to listen to McCrea (sp?) when on the panel.

However, after watching the reply Cummings believed his first reaction was was wrong abd that the played did run behind the man. Then the video ref disagreed & the try was given.

Let's not get the facts, or the rules, get into a good slagging off of the RFL and Wigan. Nothing wrong with it at all. Hence why it was given.

Why isn't this communicated to the commentators?



They don't kow what they are talking about and thus create false controversy with fans. This is a prime example with last night and mcguires try, both simple and correct decisions.

It was extremley close but at the point of physically touching the ball the wigan player was on the outside shoulder of the dummy runner.



Wigan couldn't have got the timing much more perfect.