Wire v Saints refereeing decisions!

[shaunedwardsfanclub]

wasnt high, arm was over the shoulder, 90% of tackles are made with a similar motion.

Of course it was high, contact was made with the head. If that had been Sam and Saints had been awarded a scrum you would have been screaming blue murder!

[shaunedwardsfanclub]

On top of all that Daryl Clarke should get an academy award for his acting - last 3 wire games I've seen he's been a real conman and doesn't need to be as he's a decent enough player without the continual attempts to get penalties

Ratchford is murder for this too. When he spilled the ball in a tackle by Percival a scrum was awarded to Saints. Ratchford stayed down holding his head long enough for the VR to intervene (which apparently they can do when the game is stopped) and award a penalty to Wire for a high tackle, which was, if at all, the slightest of high tackles whatsoever.
As soon as the penalty was awarded Ratchford jumped up with a miracle of a recovery.
Saints lose an attacking scrum in Wires 20, Wire are piggy backed up to Saints 40.
Some people will call this clever or gamesmanship by Ratchford, but this is not the Rugby League I grew up with or how I believe it should be played.

I too don't like play acting but Percival's technique was poor and it was a penalty.

[shaunedwardsfanclub]

The first video ref decision for the Gidley try was strange. They checked the obstruction, but didn't roll the video on to a successful grounding over the line. They stopped the replay with Gidley grounding the ball short of the line, and when I saw it at the time and in replays, you don't see the ball grounded over the line.

I don't think it was.

I've never seen a video ref decision like that not look at the grounding if the try is going to be given.

It looked a try to me. The ref had awarded a try so the VR would have to be 100% certain that he didn't ground it and from the replay there is no way he could do that.

[yokozuna]

The first video ref decision for the Gidley try was strange. They checked the obstruction, but didn't roll the video on to a successful grounding over the line. They stopped the replay with Gidley grounding the ball short of the line, and when I saw it at the time and in replays, you don't see the ball grounded over the line.

I don't think it was.

I've never seen a video ref decision like that not look at the grounding if the try is going to be given.

It looked a try to me. The ref had awarded a try so the VR would have to be 100% certain that he didn't ground it and from the replay there is no way he could do that.

That's fine, but at least the video ref should look at it! I didn't see the ball grounded over the line. He grounded it before, and then was held up from what I could see. Certainly grounds for debate on that, and therefore something the video ref should have checked, surely?

Every time a try is awarded by the video ref, they show the grounding at the end and then they award the try. They awarded the Gidley try with the video paused with him before the line.

[The booze hound]

On top of all that Daryl Clarke should get an academy award for his acting - last 3 wire games I've seen he's been a real conman and doesn't need to be as he's a decent enough player without the continual attempts to get penalties

Ratchford is murder for this too. When he spilled the ball in a tackle by Percival a scrum was awarded to Saints. Ratchford stayed down holding his head long enough for the VR to intervene (which apparently they can do when the game is stopped) and award a penalty to Wire for a high tackle, which was, if at all, the slightest of high tackles whatsoever.
As soon as the penalty was awarded Ratchford jumped up with a miracle of a recovery.
Saints lose an attacking scrum in Wires 20, Wire are piggy backed up to Saints 40.
Some people will call this clever or gamesmanship by Ratchford, but this is not the Rugby League I grew up with or how I believe it should be played.

Why should Ratchford have to downplay the effect on him of a high tackle? Can't see how this is play acting.
The offense was committed and Ratchford made sure the ref was aware.
F
This seems fair enough to me.

If every time a player thought high contact was made going into a tackle then sat down and rubbed his head we'd have 6 men every set sat down rubbing their heads.
RATCHFORD WAS NOT HURT. HE PRETENDED HE WAS. That is play acting.

[oldhooker]

Just another example of why we should scrap the video ref, this was an awful decision.

[pedro]

wasnt high, arm was over the shoulder, 90% of tackles are made with a similar motion.

Of course it was high, contact was made with the head. If that had been Sam and Saints had been awarded a scrum you would have been screaming blue murder!

well I wouldnt as it wasnt high, arm over the shoulder draping down the chest isnt high which is what it was, no contact with the head at all.

[phild1]

I've always thought Thaler was pretty fair but the decisions from him and his line judges were unbelievable tonight

On top of all that Daryl Clarke should get an academy award for his acting - last 3 wire games I've seen he's been a real conman and doesn't need to be as he's a decent enough player without the continual attempts to get penalties

==phild1=getting beat like that leaves a nasty taste; smiths remark when challenged was we will take anything on offer. You are spot on with clark he is in the top three conn men in the game.stevo who hasn't got sir kev to go into raptures over now has adopted Clark; enough said.

[jobo]

Ratchford is murder for this too. When he spilled the ball in a tackle by Percival a scrum was awarded to Saints. Ratchford stayed down holding his head long enough for the VR to intervene (which apparently they can do when the game is stopped) and award a penalty to Wire for a high tackle, which was, if at all, the slightest of high tackles whatsoever.
As soon as the penalty was awarded Ratchford jumped up with a miracle of a recovery.
Saints lose an attacking scrum in Wires 20, Wire are piggy backed up to Saints 40.
Some people will call this clever or gamesmanship by Ratchford, but this is not the Rugby League I grew up with or how I believe it should be played.

Why should Ratchford have to downplay the effect on him of a high tackle? Can't see how this is play acting.
The offense was committed and Ratchford made sure the ref was aware.
F
This seems fair enough to me.

If every time a player thought high contact was made going into a tackle then sat down and rubbed his head we'd have 6 men every set sat down rubbing their heads.
RATCHFORD WAS NOT HURT. HE PRETENDED HE WAS. That is play acting.

He felt it. To what degree, only he knows but imo, it was high and he's entitled, even duty bound to make sure the ref is aware. If the ref thinks he's play acting then he won't give the penalty.

No need to shout by the way.

[The booze hound]

Why should Ratchford have to downplay the effect on him of a high tackle? Can't see how this is play acting.
The offense was committed and Ratchford made sure the ref was aware.
F
This seems fair enough to me.

If every time a player thought high contact was made going into a tackle then sat down and rubbed his head we'd have 6 men every set sat down rubbing their heads.
RATCHFORD WAS NOT HURT. HE PRETENDED HE WAS. That is play acting.

He felt it. To what degree, only he knows but imo, it was high and he's entitled, even duty bound to make sure the ref is aware. If the ref thinks he's play acting then he won't give the penalty.

No need to shout by the way.

if it was a high tackle then the captain could have spoken to the ref. Play acting is not the rugby league way. It'll open Pandora's box and rugby league will become unrecognisable if play acting becomes acceptable.