Hull v Leigh

[widdenoldboy]

I actually thought on the review they were blatantly obvious that the first decision was incorrect, although in fairness to the ref, they could easily be missed by the rest but obvious when under scrutiny on the playback.

On the second with Briscoe, if he was not in touch why did the linesman put his flag up, he never moved his foot any further back from what I could tell than when he planted his foot, so why put the flag up, I think the VR bottled it on two occasions and the head of refs should review the process again and issue guidance to refs based on the footage.

For the briscoe incident correct me if I'm wrong here. But if briscoes foot was on the line when he catches the ball it's a penalty for Hull on half way right, for putting the ball straight dead? So wasnt the point of the challenge that his foot *was* in touch when he caught it, vs catching first and then stepping into touch. The VR accepted that the refs call that the foot was in touch could not be disproven, and he had clear evidence that it was placed there before he caught the ball so surely the challenge is successful. I think the VR thought he was being asked to say that briscoes foot was not in touch, which isn't really what they were challenging?

It was an odd one, weren't the commentators saying that the review said that his foot wasnt in touch so it should have been play on ie not a penalty and not a scrum to Leigh either? Confused much?

[WarriorWinger]

I actually thought on the review they were blatantly obvious that the first decision was incorrect, although in fairness to the ref, they could easily be missed by the rest but obvious when under scrutiny on the playback.

On the second with Briscoe, if he was not in touch why did the linesman put his flag up, he never moved his foot any further back from what I could tell than when he planted his foot, so why put the flag up, I think the VR bottled it on two occasions and the head of refs should review the process again and issue guidance to refs based on the footage.

For the briscoe incident correct me if I'm wrong here. But if briscoes foot was on the line when he catches the ball it's a penalty for Hull on half way right, for putting the ball straight dead? So wasnt the point of the challenge that his foot *was* in touch when he caught it, vs catching first and then stepping into touch. The VR accepted that the refs call that the foot was in touch could not be disproven, and he had clear evidence that it was placed there before he caught the ball so surely the challenge is successful. I think the VR thought he was being asked to say that briscoes foot was not in touch, which isn't really what they were challenging?

You are right, if his foot was on the line when he caught the ball then it is as if the ball had been kicked straight dead and would be a penalty on half way, the ref thought that he caught it then put his foot on the line and therefore awarded a scrum.

The linesman put his flag up to say his foot was i touch so for me the only grey area was when was his foot in touch in relation to catching the ball and I think he clearly had his foot planted before catching the ball and if the linesman then put his flag up it should be a penalty as it has been kicked straight dead, I didn't see any movement in his foot after he caught the ball over than lifting it up, so for me it should have been a penalty.