The Westerman "try"

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
cumbria_warrior
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by cumbria_warrior »

onedego wrote:what got me was that (on both of the tries) he went up to the touch judge and asked him "Was that a try", and the touch judge basically shrugged. I think he was there for a jolly in front of 15'200 peeps.

gp, you must've passed me by then... I was on the front row, second block over... B31 on the isle...
The touch judge in question, told the ref that he was not able to see for definate on both occasions so the try was given for benefit of doubt. I know this because spoke to him yesterday at work, and yes I did tell him all the officials had a nightmare
User avatar
gillysmyhero
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:15 pm

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by gillysmyhero »

cumbria_warrior wrote:
onedego wrote:what got me was that (on both of the tries) he went up to the touch judge and asked him "Was that a try", and the touch judge basically shrugged. I think he was there for a jolly in front of 15'200 peeps.

gp, you must've passed me by then... I was on the front row, second block over... B31 on the isle...
The touch judge in question, told the ref that he was not able to see for definate on both occasions so the try was given for benefit of doubt. I know this because spoke to him yesterday at work, and yes I did tell him all the officials had a nightmare
Cumbria warrior did he say anything about Hulls rough house
tactics or the way that they went for Sam
User avatar
wiggydoran
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 10:02 pm

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by wiggydoran »

cumbria_warrior wrote:
onedego wrote:what got me was that (on both of the tries) he went up to the touch judge and asked him "Was that a try", and the touch judge basically shrugged. I think he was there for a jolly in front of 15'200 peeps.

gp, you must've passed me by then... I was on the front row, second block over... B31 on the isle...
The touch judge in question, told the ref that he was not able to see for definate on both occasions so the try was given for benefit of doubt. I know this because spoke to him yesterday at work, and yes I did tell him all the officials had a nightmare
What pees me off is there was 2 officials within 5 meters of the try. Judging by the picture both of them got it wrong. I have paused the highlights when the ball was put down. The in goal ref as a brilliant view of the try and the touch judge was on the blind side of the play. Fatty Ganson was not in shot.

I know refs can't go off the reactions but Westerman did not celebrate that much. The way the ball came out also made it look like he did not ground the ball properly.
cumbria_warrior
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by cumbria_warrior »

Just said that the main incident was put on report and he was suprised nothing came of it. All the touch judges can do is tell the ref and its up to him if he gives anything, for example the touch judge gets the blame for not standing 10 but they tell the ref via mic and its up to him if calls it or not, really they might as well not be there then eh
FROM A TO B
Posts: 5038
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:07 pm
Contact:

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by FROM A TO B »

Unfortunately, until we have a video ref, and a full suite of cameras at every game, you will always get this type of decision going one way or the other. Can't see any point in going on about it, as they say, read it in the papers.

Now, anyone remember the famous Terry O'connor try that never was?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUaMFOoLk3U
Warrior came
Warrior saw
Warrior conquered
Warrior came
Warrior saw
Warrior conquered
4bobs
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:49 pm

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by 4bobs »


What makes it all worse is two tries I saw on Boots n all - the tries, where one Cas forward seems to score a try to then have it referred up by Silverwood and then ruled out for a double movement on video ref, whereas another (can't recall who) scores a clear-as-day double movement directly in front of Halibut who gives the try even though one of the defence players tells him it was a x2 move. Halibut never seemed to check with either touch judge or in goal ref. This second one was ten times more obvious than the Cas no-try!

Consistency or wot.
Dobby
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by Dobby »

Westerman's try was never a try and I have doubts about Briscoe's too. However saying that I think that 1 of O'Loughlin's passes to Charnley was forward and the other was borderline so cant really complain too much.
Sutty
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: The Westerman "try"

Post by Sutty »

Dobby wrote:Westerman's try was never a try and I have doubts about Briscoe's too. However saying that I think that 1 of O'Loughlin's passes to Charnley was forward and the other was borderline so cant really complain too much.
They can't have been, otherwise Dicky Agar would have mentioned it as another reason that Wigan are cheats and everybody should hate them. :lol:


Post Reply