MrDave wrote:Probably a 50/50 decision the ball came free and Coley caught it. There is some question as to whether Coley knocked the ball out with his other hand but at normal speed the Wakefield players seems to loose the ball trying to offload.
What ever happened to benefit of the doubt to the attacking side?
You forget, Mr Dave, that rule only applies to teams playing against Wigan [/u]
Well said sutty.Obvious bias against Wigan.Sustained on a regular basis.Note that refs almost always always go to the video ref in the hope that a try can be denied for the least possible reason.Can the same be said when the stains play? I think not!
Try for me. What was Coley meant to do? If he had left the tackle quickly so as not to get the ball it would have dropped and he'd have been done for ball stealing anyway. No win situation.
Gareth Thomas before his first game: "You wanna spend 10 mins getting smashed up by these guys..Big dudes here.."
Sutty wrote:You forget, Mr Dave, that rule only applies to teams playing against Wigan [/u]
Good point, I remember in the 'relegation' season a Wakefield player knocked the ball out of Richard's hand as he went for the match winning try, under the rules at the time it should have been a penalty try but it was not given, could have cost Wigan the super league but lucky didn't. RFL changed the rules after that to cover their backs.
RFL decided it was the ball carries responsibility to keep hold of the ball yet that rule seemed to disappear for the Coley decision.
the defenders hands/arm/shoulder come into contact with the ball in the vast majority of tackles. to give a penalty they have to be sure that the defender has ripped it out of the players grasp and not just put pressure on a loose carry. we hear all the time about the ball carrier having the responsibilty of looking after the ball,so an attacker can't just let go of it when the defenders wrap the ball up, and i don't think grix was doing that.
Whether or not the video ref made the right decision this case illustrates the problem of technology. We all want it to clarify and get things right, but here a decision has been made and people still don't agree, and still don't necessarily think that technology has guaranteed the right answer.
For a while now I have wondered if we would be better with a system neared to what they do in tennis. Perhaps we should use in-goal judges for every match (not just the untelevised ones) and the referee should always make a decision on the pitch. Then if the defending team challenge the decision it could be referred to the video ref. Note that it would be the team captains who referred the case, not the referee.
If we allow two unsuccesful appeals to the video ref. per captain per game (succesful appeals don't count) we might get a better flow of the game and the captains would only appeal if they genuinely believed there was an issue.
I'm not sure if Wakefield would have appealed Coley's (non) try.
stevethegas wrote:Whether or not the video ref made the right decision this case illustrates the problem of technology. We all want it to clarify and get things right, but here a decision has been made and people still don't agree, and still don't necessarily think that technology has guaranteed the right answer.
For a while now I have wondered if we would be better with a system neared to what they do in tennis. Perhaps we should use in-goal judges for every match (not just the untelevised ones) and the referee should always make a decision on the pitch. Then if the defending team challenge the decision it could be referred to the video ref. Note that it would be the team captains who referred the case, not the referee.
If we allow two unsuccesful appeals to the video ref. per captain per game (succesful appeals don't count) we might get a better flow of the game and the captains would only appeal if they genuinely believed there was an issue.
I'm not sure if Wakefield would have appealed Coley's (non) try.
That, or something similar, sounds like a good idea. The NFL have had that option in place for some years now, and cricket has now adopted it too.
stevethegas wrote:Whether or not the video ref made the right decision this case illustrates the problem of technology. We all want it to clarify and get things right, but here a decision has been made and people still don't agree, and still don't necessarily think that technology has guaranteed the right answer.
For a while now I have wondered if we would be better with a system neared to what they do in tennis. Perhaps we should use in-goal judges for every match (not just the untelevised ones) and the referee should always make a decision on the pitch. Then if the defending team challenge the decision it could be referred to the video ref. Note that it would be the team captains who referred the case, not the referee.
If we allow two unsuccesful appeals to the video ref. per captain per game (succesful appeals don't count) we might get a better flow of the game and the captains would only appeal if they genuinely believed there was an issue.
I'm not sure if Wakefield would have appealed Coley's (non) try.
Good idea but main priority imo is to get video ref at every game.
Gareth Thomas before his first game: "You wanna spend 10 mins getting smashed up by these guys..Big dudes here.."
[/u]
