ref

[right cross]

the only thing i can our ever have seen is that the only thing refs are consistant at is makeing the wrong disistions[cant spell].dont forget we are talking about a saints game not a wigan game? we will be busy next weekend ,i hope its not all about the ref again

[cpwigan]

Rob your intelligent too, especially for a referee. However, some points to consider.

You say sin bin for a late challenge, send off for a high late challenge. Now IMO AK did not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realise that Thorman was concussed and therefore must have taken a blow to the head. Elementary my dear Robjoenz

You say, the referee cannot watch everything at the same time. I concur. However, I like all my fellow Sgt Major Clays are regularly told officials are a team and wired for sound. Surely the touchie should keep an eye on the kicker and he should inform the referee as to what happened. Teamwork Rob even better we now pay for fulltime video referees. Are you telling us mere Clays that in the time it takes play to stop, the referee to check the injured player and call the culprit that Herquel Ganson cannot say ASHLEEE HE HIT HIM ONT HEAD or JUST LATE OUR ASHLEE.

Surely all this could have been worked out already given they have nothing else to do with their time anymore.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob your intelligent too, especially for a referee. However, some points to consider.

You say sin bin for a late challenge, send off for a high late challenge. Now IMO AK did not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realise that Thorman was concussed and therefore must have taken a blow to the head. Elementary my dear Robjoenz

You say, the referee cannot watch everything at the same time. I concur. However, I like all my fellow Sgt Major Clays are regularly told officials are a team and wired for sound. Surely the touchie should keep an eye on the kicker and he should inform the referee as to what happened. Teamwork Rob even better we now pay for fulltime video referees. Are you telling us mere Clays that in the time it takes play to stop, the referee to check the injured player and call the culprit that Herquel Ganson cannot say ASHLEEE HE HIT HIM ONT HEAD or JUST LATE OUR ASHLEE.

Surely all this could have been worked out already given they have nothing else to do with their time anymore.

You can't make a decision based on what you've seen after the event. A challenge on the kicker may not have been intentionally high, for example. So you can't go sending people off because of something that you deduce has happened.

The touch judges and referees are all looking for the challenge on the kicker but as I explained in the last post it's easier to sit at home moaning whilst watching a slow-mo' replay than it is to spot something in normal speed and if you're not entirely sure the challenge was high you can't go giving red cards out. Had Wilkin's arm been raised or his elbow out then I have no doubt he'd have been sent off.

The correct procedure was followed, the challenge was penalised, the player sin-binned and the incident put on report because there was uncertainty.

[cpwigan]

Rob, if I see somebody challenging a kicker I want to see his hands up in the air for an attempt to charge down the ball. That is a legitimate attempt to challenge a kicker.

Wilkin braced himself and cocked his arm and threw his shoulder. That should have been seen by the linesman or video referee.

Let the referee look at watching offside chasers and the kick return. Delegate the tasks. I should not be telling you how to do this. Cummings gets paid to do it.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob, if I see somebody challenging a kicker I want to see his hands up in the air for an attempt to charge down the ball. That is a legitimate attempt to challenge a kicker.

Wilkin braced himself and cocked his arm and threw his shoulder. That should have been seen by the linesman or video referee.

Let the referee look at watching offside chasers and the kick return. Delegate the tasks. I should not be telling you how to do this. Cummings gets paid to do it.

If you see someone challenging a kicker it's a penalty. You cannot challenge a man without the ball.

As for the second part, you clearly have slower motion replays in your mind than Sky have. You can only go with what you see, you can't join the dots to give an embellished view.

Cummings has told all the officials, however, things still get missed. The aim is obviously to spot everything but you can't always.

[damien morrissey]

robjoenz posted:

cpwigan posted:
Rob, if I see somebody challenging a kicker I want to see his hands up in the air for an attempt to charge down the ball. That is a legitimate attempt to challenge a kicker.

Wilkin braced himself and cocked his arm and threw his shoulder. That should have been seen by the linesman or video referee.

Let the referee look at watching offside chasers and the kick return. Delegate the tasks. I should not be telling you how to do this. Cummings gets paid to do it.

If you see someone challenging a kicker it's a penalty. You cannot challenge a man without the ball.

As for the second part, you clearly have slower motion replays in your mind than Sky have. You can only go with what you see, you can't join the dots to give an embellished view.

Cummings has told all the officials, however, things still get missed. The aim is obviously to spot everything but you can't always.

Rob i can see your point of view about only giving what you can see and that is fair enough. What worries me is the damage that can be done when attacking a player in the process of kicking the ball his focus is the ball not the impact and he needs to be afforded more protection. If a kicker in our sport goes down with injuries to the head after impact it isnt supposition to work out the cause.
I understand you cant see everything possibly due to the inability of refs over the years to solve this problem and the damage it could cause while the injury is being accessed the video ref should replay it or review it and pass the information back down.

[robjoenz]

damien morrissey posted:
Rob i can see your point of view about only giving what you can see and that is fair enough. What worries me is the damage that can be done when attacking a player in the process of kicking the ball his focus is the ball not the impact and he needs to be afforded more protection. If a kicker in our sport goes down with injuries to the head after impact it isnt supposition to work out the cause.
I understand you cant see everything possibly due to the inability of refs over the years to solve this problem and the damage it could cause while the injury is being accessed the video ref should replay it or review it and pass the information back down.

I agree and something is being done. Referees and touch judges are paying special attention to spot offences on the kicker and lots more were spotted last season than in previous seasons.

I cannot see what was wrong with what happened to Wilkin. The on-field officials obviously weren't sure of the extent of the challenge (whether it was malicious or not, no raised arms, for example) so followed the correct procedure. The penalty was given, the offender sin-binned and later banned for two games as a deterent.

Assuming the officials were uncertain as to whether Wilkin had intentionally gone for the head then there is no better way in which this situation could have been handled.

[cpwigan]

Robjoenz that was your worst post mate. You cannot see what was wrong. Huddersfield lost a playmaker in Thorman for the remainder of the match. Saints lost a player for 10 minutes. The game was close. Saints gained an advantage from foul play once the 10 minutes elapsed. Huddersfield were disadvantaged. It is fair to say that by not sending Wilkin off, AK influenced the result towards Saints, not deliberately. Fould play is better punished in the match it takes place and to the benefit/cost of the teams involved.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Robjoenz that was your worst post mate. You cannot see what was wrong. Huddersfield lost a playmaker in Thorman for the remainder of the match. Saints lost a player for 10 minutes. The game was close. Saints gained an advantage from foul play once the 10 minutes elapsed. Huddersfield were disadvantaged. It is fair to say that by not sending Wilkin off, AK influenced the result towards Saints, not deliberately. Fould play is better punished in the match it takes place and to the benefit/cost of the teams involved.

I agree, foul play is best punished in the match but if the officials weren't sure whether the challenge by Wilkin was deliberately high then they can't send him off. If this was the case then it was dealt with in the correct way.

You are suggesting that if the officials are unsure then they should base it on extent of injury. You can't give out punishments based on the extent of an injury. Also, how would the referee know the extent of the injury or whether the injury was sustained during impact or as he landed?

[cpwigan]

I think your wasted Rob, defence attorney is your true calling Touchjudge watches the kicker and challenges, tells the referee what he sees, referee says to video referee high/late or just late? Sent off or sin binned. This refereeing lark is common sense. It isn't rocket science