surrender surrender play on

[Paleaaesina_Da_Beast]

I aint Ganson, nor a Referee. But I have a mate who is.

The "Surrender" call is when an Attacking player surrenders in a tackle. (Prime example, Paul Wellens).

However, it doesn't mean the player is HELD!.. The defending team must then complete the tackle. If you watch a reply of Leeds incident, you will see that Carmont doesn't actually complete the tackle on the leeds player (i think it was L.Smith). And could therefore continue play.

When the ref is shouting "Surrender!!!" he is speaking to the attacking player - meaning, stop trying to shove off defenders and stop trying to run.

[FROM A TO B]

Based on the title of this thread, perhaps Ganson in Italian and not from Stains :eusa14:

[cpwigan]

No,

surrender (it should be surrendered that is what it started as) and dominant are two terms the referee uses to indicated that the defence can take longer getting off the tackled player. SO to shout either the player has to be tackled.

Surrend(ered) = player with the ball tried to go to ground immediately. Did not fight contact. This is favoured to get a quick play of the ball. Coaches talk about finding the ground and so on when tackled.

Dominant is when the player with the ball is monstered/driven backward/hit very hard etc.

Both calls means thedefenders can take a fewseconds more getting off the tackled player.

[robjoenz]

No,

surrender (it should be surrendered that is what it started as) and dominant are two terms the referee uses to indicated that the defence can take longer getting off the tackled player. SO to shout either the player has to be tackled.

Surrend(ered) = player with the ball tried to go to ground immediately. Did not fight contact. This is favoured to get a quick play of the ball. Coaches talk about finding the ground and so on when tackled.

Dominant is when the player with the ball is monstered/driven backward/hit very hard etc.

Both calls means thedefenders can take a fewseconds more getting off the tackled player.

Correct - however, to take longer to get off the tackle you need to first make a tackle. That's the key point here.

[exile in Tiger country]

I don't claim to be a ref or an expert on the rules, but I beleived that if a ref calls "Surrednder" the tackle is omplete, this is similar to the incident at the JJB last season (against Wakefield I think) when a ref shouted surrender then the opposing player put he ball down over the line and the try was awarded. The Wigan players went mad, because they had released the attacking player because of the ref's call.
it certainly caused some confusion and comment amongst the SKY team.

[Mike]

I recall in that incident he actually shouted a tackle number. The arguement that the tackle was not complete from the refereeing fraternity is that he didn't shout "Held" so the tackle was not complete i.e. unlike what Rob said above, shouting a tackle number does not indicate a completed tackle. Neither does surrender or dominant either apparently.

[robjoenz]

I recall in that incident he actually shouted a tackle number. The arguement that the tackle was not complete from the refereeing fraternity is that he didn't shout "Held" so the tackle was not complete i.e. unlike what Rob said above, shouting a tackle number does not indicate a completed tackle. Neither does surrender or dominant either apparently.

Are you getting mixed up, Mike? There were two incidents that I can think of, both Karl Kirkpatrick. Both against Wakefield?

1 - KK shouted held as Solomona was grounding the ball - there was insufficient time between the shout and grounding for players to react to the shout. So the try was given by the VR.

2 - In the other incident Wigan defenders released the ball carrier before the referee had shouted anything and he continued to move forward so it was play-on.

It's poor refereeing to call the tackle number if the ball may be offloaded because it has not been wrapped up. It is poor defending to jump off the tackle if the referee hasn't called it complete by shouting "held" "1" "2" "3" "4" "5" or "last."

[mike binder]

I recall in that incident he actually shouted a tackle number. The arguement that the tackle was not complete from the refereeing fraternity is that he didn't shout "Held" so the tackle was not complete i.e. unlike what Rob said above, shouting a tackle number does not indicate a completed tackle. Neither does surrender or dominant either apparently.

Are you getting mixed up, Mike? There were two incidents that I can think of, both Karl Kirkpatrick. Both against Wakefield?

1 - KK shouted held as Solomona was grounding the ball - there was insufficient time between the shout and grounding for players to react to the shout. So the try was given by the VR.

2 - In the other incident Wigan defenders released the ball carrier before the referee had shouted anything and he continued to move forward so it was play-on.

It's poor refereeing to call the tackle number if the ball may be offloaded because it has not been wrapped up. It is poor defending to jump off the tackle if the referee hasn't called it complete by shouting "held" "1" "2" "3" "4" "5" or "last."

rob in that incident at wakefield karl is clearly heard shouting last tackle

[robjoenz]

rob in that incident at wakefield karl is clearly heard shouting last tackle

by which point the ball was already being grounded and I don't care what anyone says, not one of the Wigan has reactions quick enough to hear that and then fall off the tackle.

[jammie]

so we are trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea,if the ref shouts surrender and we hold on to the player we run the risk of the whistle happy ref(most games this season)awarding a penalty against us.on the other hand if we let go on the shout of surrender it's now play on because the tackle is not complete,sorry but the ref's carn't have it both ways,ganson cocked up it's as simple as that just like the try that solomona scored the ref cocked up,and doesn't the video ref have no sound when he watches the reply,so there was no way he could do anything but award the try because he couldn't here the ref's call and so couldn't see any reason for the wigan players releasing solomona.i cannot see why the referees will not just say we made a mistake and there is always some sort of justification for there incorrect actions.