Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
josie andrews
Posts: 25413
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: Wigan

Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by josie andrews » Sun May 12, 2019 10:48 pm

Kris Radlinski described Robert Hicks' controversial 'no try' decision as a "massive own goal" for rugby league.

And he has called for changes after being left stunned by the video referee's decision to rule out Dan Sarginson's early score.

Thomas Leuluai had dislodged the ball from Blake Austin with a thunderous tackle and after Sarginson crossed the whitewash, on-field referee James Child referred the decision to Hicks with an on-field decision of 'try'.

But after multiple replays, Hicks ruled a knock-on by Leuluai - leaving Warriors' executive director Radlinski questioning the potential damage being done to the game as a spectacle.

"That clip should be beamed around the world showing how exciting our sport is," he said. "What a tackle. Warrington fans were clapping it.

"We are trying to get a new TV deal and entertain the world yet our official are looking for reasons not to give tries.

"Something has to change. In a week when sporting drama has been on the front pages, we manage to get it completely wrong again and score a massive own goal."

Coach Adrian Lam was confused by the ruling.

"I don't know what happened there," he said. "Even on the computer, I can't see what they've ruled there. What I saw, it looked like a try... what do you do there?"

Leuluai didn't feel he had knocked-on but stressed he was not suggesting Wigan were robbed.

"I'd have to look at it again," said the Kiwi. "We still had our chances to win though... we let in some soft tries. You've got to be better in those big games."

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/kris-r ... -1-9763709
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage.

josie andrews
Posts: 25413
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: Wigan

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by josie andrews » Sun May 12, 2019 10:49 pm

Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage.

The Yonner
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by The Yonner » Mon May 13, 2019 9:51 pm

In my opinion this refs decision was perfectly rational, and has nothing to do with Robert Hicks' competence or lack thereof!

Why do I think that?

Because what we just saw was the logical outcome of rugby league selling its soul to the television sport industry in the early 1990s.

What did Sky expect in return for supposedly saving rugby league from (never proven) impending economic doom?

Complete subservience in terms of switching dates and times to suit their schedules in the first place, which was to be expected, after all the BBC had been messing us about for years.

But it wasn't long before the piper called the tune like never before with the rule changes, all of which were designed to increase the quantity of try scoring opportunities, and so the theory goes, to make the game a more exciting spectacle on the television screens.

Not unreasonable you might think, what with all those state of the art cameras and fancy editing capabilities, how could Sky be expected to be satisfied with boring encounters like Wigan v Manly when no tries might be scored at all?

So then we had the offside rule changes to make both teams retire 10 metres from the play the ball instead of 5, which increased scoring massively, notwithstanding the move forcing all teams to adopt the same predictable style of play and a diminished role for creative players such as Andy Gregory.

But Sky were still not satisfied with their satellite subscription sales, so came up with another wizard wheeze in the form of the video referee!

Now they had their tele-visual utopia!

Because it's not lots of replays of tries they want to bring to entertain their viewers - it's DISALLOWED tries!

Disallowed tries are what - they think - creates excitement, controversy and subscriptions.

So referees, in my view, are not bent, or even incompetent (generally speaking).

However they submissively supply their masters - the television producers - with their every desire.

That's why we have otherwise competent and honest referees leaving no stone unturned to disallow a try - it makes perfect sense.

Ooh I do feel better after getting that off my chest!

Woody1989
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:16 pm

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by Woody1989 » Mon May 13, 2019 11:19 pm

The Yonner wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 9:51 pm
In my opinion this refs decision was perfectly rational, and has nothing to do with Robert Hicks' competence or lack thereof!

Why do I think that?

Because what we just saw was the logical outcome of rugby league selling its soul to the television sport industry in the early 1990s.

What did Sky expect in return for supposedly saving rugby league from (never proven) impending economic doom?

Complete subservience in terms of switching dates and times to suit their schedules in the first place, which was to be expected, after all the BBC had been messing us about for years.

But it wasn't long before the piper called the tune like never before with the rule changes, all of which were designed to increase the quantity of try scoring opportunities, and so the theory goes, to make the game a more exciting spectacle on the television screens.

Not unreasonable you might think, what with all those state of the art cameras and fancy editing capabilities, how could Sky be expected to be satisfied with boring encounters like Wigan v Manly when no tries might be scored at all?

So then we had the offside rule changes to make both teams retire 10 metres from the play the ball instead of 5, which increased scoring massively, notwithstanding the move forcing all teams to adopt the same predictable style of play and a diminished role for creative players such as Andy Gregory.

But Sky were still not satisfied with their satellite subscription sales, so came up with another wizard wheeze in the form of the video referee!

Now they had their tele-visual utopia!

Because it's not lots of replays of tries they want to bring to entertain their viewers - it's DISALLOWED tries!

Disallowed tries are what - they think - creates excitement, controversy and subscriptions.

So referees, in my view, are not bent, or even incompetent (generally speaking).

However they submissively supply their masters - the television producers - with their every desire.

That's why we have otherwise competent and honest referees leaving no stone unturned to disallow a try - it makes perfect sense.

Ooh I do feel better after getting that off my chest!
Wow, does someone have a spare tin foil hat?

First Try Tickle
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 1:15 am

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by First Try Tickle » Mon May 13, 2019 11:24 pm

That makes about as much sense as the the reason Hicks gave for disallowing the try.

The reason he didn't allow it, is he wants to be centre of attention just like Ganson was when he was the ref. Always made sure he was facing the camera if the game was on TV.

User avatar
Mike
Site Admin
Posts: 5338
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by Mike » Tue May 14, 2019 12:51 am

The Yonner wrote:In my opinion this refs decision was perfectly rational, and has nothing to do with Robert Hicks' competence or lack thereof!

Why do I think that?

Because what we just saw was the logical outcome of rugby league selling its soul to the television sport industry in the early 1990s.

What did Sky expect in return for supposedly saving rugby league from (never proven) impending economic doom?

Complete subservience in terms of switching dates and times to suit their schedules in the first place, which was to be expected, after all the BBC had been messing us about for years.

But it wasn't long before the piper called the tune like never before with the rule changes, all of which were designed to increase the quantity of try scoring opportunities, and so the theory goes, to make the game a more exciting spectacle on the television screens.

Not unreasonable you might think, what with all those state of the art cameras and fancy editing capabilities, how could Sky be expected to be satisfied with boring encounters like Wigan v Manly when no tries might be scored at all?

So then we had the offside rule changes to make both teams retire 10 metres from the play the ball instead of 5, which increased scoring massively, notwithstanding the move forcing all teams to adopt the same predictable style of play and a diminished role for creative players such as Andy Gregory.

But Sky were still not satisfied with their satellite subscription sales, so came up with another wizard wheeze in the form of the video referee!

Now they had their tele-visual utopia!

Because it's not lots of replays of tries they want to bring to entertain their viewers - it's DISALLOWED tries!

Disallowed tries are what - they think - creates excitement, controversy and subscriptions.

So referees, in my view, are not bent, or even incompetent (generally speaking).

However they submissively supply their masters - the television producers - with their every desire.

That's why we have otherwise competent and honest referees leaving no stone unturned to disallow a try - it makes perfect sense.

Ooh I do feel better after getting that off my chest!
If they want disallowed tries how come he gave Sarges double movement? Also does the BBC also demand disallowed tries, or just sky?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


The Yonner
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by The Yonner » Tue May 14, 2019 8:03 pm

Mike

As other posters have suggested - he gave the Sarginson try because he had just been slammed by the pundits for disallowing the first one.

I'm not saying they want to disallow EVERY try, but doing it for a substantial portion of them fits the agenda.

And the BBC are just aping Sky's style, trying to play catch up after falling behind technology-wise.

My original post is a little over the top, but now I've calmed down a bit, I still feel we are in danger of losing the principle of the benefit of the doubt being given to the try scorer.

In the case of the Sarginson disallowed try, surely if it took five replays before the VR decided he knew what his OPINION was, that suggests he couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt - or even on the balance of probabilities. So how can the on-field decision be reversed in such circumstances?

josie andrews
Posts: 25413
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: Wigan

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by josie andrews » Tue May 14, 2019 8:31 pm

The Yonner wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 8:03 pm
Mike

As other posters have suggested - he gave the Sarginson try because he had just been slammed by the pundits for disallowing the first one.

I'm not saying they want to disallow EVERY try, but doing it for a substantial portion of them fits the agenda.

And the BBC are just aping Sky's style, trying to play catch up after falling behind technology-wise.

My original post is a little over the top, but now I've calmed down a bit, I still feel we are in danger of losing the principle of the benefit of the doubt being given to the try scorer.

In the case of the Sarginson disallowed try, surely if it took five replays before the VR decided he knew what his OPINION was, that suggests he couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt - or even on the balance of probabilities. So how can the on-field decision be reversed in such circumstances?
It was at least eight replays!
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage.

SJ
Posts: 1008
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by SJ » Wed May 15, 2019 10:07 am

Looked in my book of Rules 1972 ewFallowfield edition Seems I owe Mr Hicks an. Apology secttion10 para2 covers accidental knock on If Tommy touched the ball then VR was right to disallow try.
Rule on accidental ko's needs clarification tho'. Sorry Mr Hicks!👹

Caboosegg
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:51 pm

Re: Kris Radlinski calls for changes after controversial 'no try' for Wigan Warriors

Post by Caboosegg » Wed May 15, 2019 11:03 am

SJ wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 10:07 am
Looked in my book of Rules 1972 ewFallowfield edition Seems I owe Mr Hicks an. Apology secttion10 para2 covers accidental knock on If Tommy touched the ball then VR was right to disallow try.
Rule on accidental ko's needs clarification tho'. Sorry Mr Hicks!👹
And theres a issue that rule basically spoilt a brilliant play, its moments like that that make the game interesting, but that rule basically means that TL should have just left the ball on the floor and thrown his hands up to claim a knock on instead of taking advantage of his hard work.

Try vs a scrum i kow which one i prefered to watch.
RL's biggest issue is the constant negativity of its own fans.

support verb [ (ENCOURAGE)

"to agree with and give encouragement to someone or something because you want him, her, or it to succeed"

Post Reply