Ben Thaler - Thoughts!!!!!

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

DaveO posted:
As to the try itself had there been no video ref then Thaler would have probably allowed it as the touch judge did not raise his flag.

I think I am right in saying that had it been a non-sky game that he'd have raised his flag. He backed off from the flag instead and probably asked Ben to confirm it with the VR. Can be risky if the player doesn't score, like GB v France.

So you are saying touch judges may not raise their flag if they think a player is in touch because there is a video ref present?

If so that is a complete ludicrous way to officiate a game IMO. The touch judge was bang on the spot and doing as you suggest is placing over reliance on the VR who clearly was unsure as well. If he had raised his flag and the replay's showed some doubt he was right that would have been one of those 50/50 calls that go against you but really the notion a touch judge should ask the ref to go the VR is crazy for this.

We wonder why we have them at the best of times so if they are not actually going to officiate we may as well get the VR to check all the touch decisions.

He took so long with the second try because he was looking for a knock on and whether or not if it came off Colbon last.

It was obvious there was no problem from the first replay.

No it wasn't... there was a potential grounding from the Leeds player, then a potential knock-on from Colbon and then a potential knock-on from Colbon as he grounded it.

[/quote]

And you could see from the first replay there was no problem.

Dave

[GeoffN]

DaveO posted:

So you are saying touch judges may not raise their flag if they think a player is in touch because there is a video ref present?

If so that is a complete ludicrous way to officiate a game IMO. The touch judge was bang on the spot and doing as you suggest is placing over reliance on the VR who clearly was unsure as well. If he had raised his flag and the replay's showed some doubt he was right that would have been one of those 50/50 calls that go against you but really the notion a touch judge should ask the ref to go the VR is crazy for this.

As I understand it, he'd only raise his flag if he was sure that the foot was in touch, but stands his ground (without raising the flag) if there's some doubt (which there was).
Haven't watched the video yet, but it seemed from the big screen that one camera angle showed a gap between the foot and the line, the other showed he touched it.
Correct officiating, in my view, although we all knew at the time that the VR being Ganson would be the deciding factor.

[turf]

I don't think Thaler looked as if he was panicking at all last night.

Although I DO agree that he was composed in his decision making.

Just an interesting thought copied from the RLFansite:

Ben Thaler was always going to struggle last night. Generally, when we get conditions like that, the ball is not only going to come loose more frequently, but players are perhaps also more likely to try their luck by dislodging the ball and hoping that the conditions will raise the chances of it being declared a knock-on.

In any event the result is that the referee will be put on the spot more frequently and, given the chance that sometimes, at full speed and without mutliple camera angles and close ups, the referee sometimes simply has to make his best guess, the conditions serve to raise the number of incorrect decisions on the night as a matter of probability.

Anyone have any thoughts on that thought? I totally 100% agree with it actually.

Even referees struggle in wet conditions. Like soeone else on here has said considering that his touch judges were niether use nor ornament, Thaler did well last night.

[Panchitta Marra]

thegimble posted:
He seemed ok missed 1 or 2 things but did anyone else feel that Ganson was looking for a reason not to give the 1st try.

He took a long time, with many re-plays to try and get out of giving it.

[robjoenz]

mickw posted:
how does a game flow when both sides are smothered, two tries a game and hardly a break is not good .

That's the conditions for you and also testament to Wigan's good defence.

I've seen Ben Thaler quite a few times this season and every game he has has a low penalty count because he lets less significant incidents slide rather than making a fuss about them. Neutral fans love this but when it's your own side playing you get annoyed if the far side winger is half an inch in front of the defensive line.

I've also seen referees who penalise the less significant incidents and generally they're the referees who get most stick from fans. Basically the referee can never win, he gives penalties and he's ruined the game, he doesn't and he's ruined the game.

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:

DaveO posted:

So you are saying touch judges may not raise their flag if they think a player is in touch because there is a video ref present?

If so that is a complete ludicrous way to officiate a game IMO. The touch judge was bang on the spot and doing as you suggest is placing over reliance on the VR who clearly was unsure as well. If he had raised his flag and the replay's showed some doubt he was right that would have been one of those 50/50 calls that go against you but really the notion a touch judge should ask the ref to go the VR is crazy for this.

As I understand it, he'd only raise his flag if he was sure that the foot was in touch, but stands his ground (without raising the flag) if there's some doubt (which there was).
Haven't watched the video yet, but it seemed from the big screen that one camera angle showed a gap between the foot and the line, the other showed he touched it.
Correct officiating, in my view, although we all knew at the time that the VR being Ganson would be the deciding factor.

It's about using common sense... if you're not 100 % sure then don't give it but by all means use the technology available to check whether it should be given. Ben would have asked whether Colbon stepped into touch so Ganson checked whether he stepped into touch and the video showed he did.

[robjoenz]

Nine posted:
...He allowed defenders to creep forward but pinged both teams when it led to interference. You still get a lot of fans yelling for offside because they don't realise it only needs to be the back foot that is in line with the ref, not the whole body...

Also fans don't realise that if a player stands 5 yards in front of the defensive line, for example, they are not offside. They are 'out of play.'

A player is only offside if they interfere with play, the referee has to decide whether there has been a significant interference to warrant a penalty.

Despite popular belief referees don't want to give penalties. If a player creeps forward half a yard before the play-the-ball is it really a significant interference? If a player is 4 yards offside at the play-the-ball is that significant, definately!

My two main bugbears were that Leeds were grappling the head of the tackled player quite a lot last night, and I thought he should have cracked down on that early doors - it's potentially very dangerous - plus like most refs he wasn't in the right position to see the forward passes that often result from a flat attack.

What do you think is the correct position to spot a forward pass? You can hardly get into the line, the only time you can practically run with the ball carrier is when there's a break.

I agree regarding the grapple tackles. Lots that the fans were moaning about were something and nothing but there were probably 2 or 3 which I think warranted penalties.

[robjoenz]

turf posted:
Like soeone else on here has said considering that his touch judges were niether use nor ornament.

This comment is one that you hear quite a lot... what makes you think that the TJs gave no input? With a communication system what visible input does a TJ give..? Touch and kicks at goal. Anything else goes via the comms. system and it's up to the referee to decide whether there's a foul taken place.