Pound to a penny the official explanation on Twitter will be that it was an incorrect play the ball and that Bentham gave the wrong signal.



Anything to cover up their own incompetence.

god ive forgotten the last time i saw a real PtB, so 99%of tries in the last 6 seasons should be chalked off...

Isn't the ruling that they must attempt to play the ball with their foot, even if it doesn't touch as long as they attempt (which peacock did) then it's ok? If they just roll it under without moving their foot to play it then it's incorrect?



The officials also missed 2 blatant offsides near the tryline after a knock on for both widnes and leeds, which even the commentators noticed.



The offciating is far too inconsistent and incompetent and it get's exposed year and after year with little change.



I'm literally in awe that after 15 years we've only had 1/2 f*ck ups in the grand final.

My understanding was that the video ref can't go back and rule on the play the ball. I remeber when the VR was first introduced, they made a ruling on that to prevent the VR going back too far and disallowing otherwise good tries for the play ball.



I think Ganson got it wrong - Peacock can't disappear, he didn't move into anyone, and McShane didn't go through his legs, he went to the side of Peacock, and a defender pushed Peacock over McShane.



I think Ganson was probably a little unsure which way to go with the call, and the slightly dodgy PTB convinced him to go with No Try.



To clear up alot of the mess with VR decisions (particularly 50/50's) we should adopt the NRL approach. The on field ref makes a call on whether they think it's a try or not, and the VR can only overturn that decision if there is conclusive proof the ref is wrong. This way, the 50/50 calls go with the gut instinct of the ref who saw it at normal pace - that to me is a much more natural outcome and also reduces the diffence in standards between games that have a VR present and those that don't. In both cases the on field ref makes the call, simply at televised games, he can have that call verified.

I agree. In the NFL the rule on the field stands unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn it.



The Video Ref can



1. Uphold the refs call (the on field call was conclusively correct)

2. Let the play stand as called (no conclusive evidence to overturn)

3. Overturn it.



It will also make referees get back into the habit of making simple decisions without kopping out to the video ref. On both recent calls that have been wrong against us IMO (this one and the Magic weekend obstruction) there was no justification for the ref to refer the call to the video. Both refs on the field saw exactly what happened and were perfectly placed

.

In the Exiles game, a try was chalked-off for "crossing".

Despite popular belief, there is no rule against "crossing" per se, it is only illegal if the obstructer puts himself in an obstructing position deliberately or if he fails to take advantage of an opportunity to de-obstruct himself.



It's worth repeating that the laws of the game actually point out that the man with the ball cannot be guilty of obstruction.



Hence, the decision in the Exiles game was also incorrect.



It does seem to me that what the refs think are the rules (especially regarding "Obstruction"icon_wink.gif are not the same as the rules as officially codified.

I don't think Peacock did anything wrong at all.



But I do think McShane barged into Peacocks legs to prevent any attempt at the tackle on him. I don't know the rules or the recent interpretations of them, but I don't think what McShane did should be legal.

Why, Peacocks legs effect McShane’s progress towards the line in the same way the effect the tacklers progress towards McShane. What you are proposing would allow the defensive line to get rid of the markers on goal line defence with the player playing the ball acting as an extra defender in the line. There was no reason McShane couldn’t have been tackled other than poor goal line defence.

It looked a try for me but (and forgive me if I've remembered the wrong try here) wasn't there a borderline/possible obstruction in the previous play? I thought Ganson had seen that "obstruction", realised he couldn't go back to the previous play to disallow it so came up with another reason not to give it. Either way still a nonsense decision from Mr Ganson.

You've got the right incident. Moore was ahead of Peacock and drew the attention of a Widnes defender who then claimed an obstruction which Bentham turned down. Peacock didn't run behind Moore (which would have been an easy decision) so you're right to refer to it as a borderline call.







Surely not. Oh hang on, you're right .... it were Ganson.



__________



Peacock was in the way of a defender on the line but he can't just disappear and he has to be somewhere when playing the ball - as others have said identical looking tries will unfortunately be given on a regular basis.



Another vote here for the NRL method which I like for the same reasons as Superted gave.

There does seem to be widespread confusion among officials at what is obstruction and what isn't.



I seem to recall Stuart Cummings commenting along the lines that if a player runs behind one of his own players while in possession then that's a penalty irrespective of whether the player in front impedes a defender, which is not what the laws of the game say.



Is it time to stop fannying around with "interpretations" and just referee the game to the letter of the laws as they are written? If things need changing, change the laws of the game so everyone knows what they are and how they are being applied.

That is my point exactly. The refs are bottling making decisions. The McGuire crossing was a great example, the ref played on, and if he had been tackled 1 meter short, we'd have still had the ball, so the ref obviously thought it wasn't obstruction. Our current system allows him to then bottle it once the try is scored - he should be made to make his decision clear before asking for confirmation - using the NRL method would I believe have led to Mcguires try being allowed, and the refs original call standing.



Another positive of the NRL system is that the number of times a ref's call is proved to be incorrect can be used as part of performance management, with real specific feedback on why they got the call wrong (bad positioning, wrong interpretation, or just unlucky) - that to me is how the officials could then improve. It would also allow the RFL to identify the more regular poor performers.