Noble claims it was a try

[cpwigan]

Rob if your tackling someone from behind, where is the target area? It is the back of thighs, roll down to the ankles. However, everybody with an ounce of knowledge knows that coaches from junior level to pro level coach players religiously to attack the ball when the player is so close to the tryline. Indeed, it is hard IMO to call Halpennys effort a tackle. He never effected a tackle, he could not do so because his prime objective was the ball.

We have to be damn honest here. Halpenny went for the ball. Nothing else. He got the ball. One v one strip and Richards grounds the ball. Try!

Earlier I mentioned the high tackle edict and you said great. Well I am all for eliminating high tackles but I am not in favour of unpublicised edicts, edicts that change every fortnight. We have a set of rules, at the start of season everything should be agreed andf publicised and nothing should change from day 1. The constant tampering on a fortnightly basis is panic, panic and confusion.

How much training do these video referees get? I would like to know.

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:

Presley has deemed that Halpenny did not intentionally steal the ball

Which was incorrect and where the problems begin.

No... you THINK he was wrong.

The whole problem is because Presley, in deeming Halfpenny did not intentionally steal the ball, was wrong. He made a deliberate play for it, ripped it out and by the rules that is play on.

Presley applied the wrong rule. Cummings has done the same in backing his ref up.

Again, you are claiming that what you think is factually correct and that the expereienced referees' interpretation is incorrect.

From the movement of Halpenny's arms I think it is apparent that he was attempting to make the tackle and not intentionally steal the ball.

Anyway, are you saying you think Presley was correct in saying Halfpenny did not go for the ball and that Richards knocked on?

At the time I was fuming about it and I was when I watched it again at home, but then I got my rules out and I have now accepted it. There is no mention in the rules, however, of a definition of a ball steal (wrt to accidental/intentional). If there was then this would be a whole lot clearer!

If you are and are agreeing with Presely and Cummings that is what happened then that is up to you but I think you are in a minority.

I know that! haha

If you think the ball was ripped, then I don't see how you can argue they are applying the rules correctly.

I know he made contact with the ball in the tackle and I think it was unintentional.

[cpwigan]

From the movement of Halpenny's arms I think it is apparent that he was attempting to make the tackle and not intentionally steal the ball.

Rob how can you say he was attempting to make a tackle. His arms came over the top of richards and went down to the ball. If your trying to prevent a player from going over the line you skulldrag him by his shirt collar. You certainly do not go over him and push him onto the try line. If your tackling from behind you go low around the legs with head to the side. Halpenny had his head in the wrong position for tackling, he was looking for the ball.

I cannot believe you even contemplated that Halpenny attempted to tackle Richards. On that basis so did Pendlebury v Mark Elia.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob if your tackling someone from behind, where is the target area? It is the back of thighs, roll down to the ankles. However, everybody with an ounce of knowledge knows that coaches from junior level to pro level coach players religiously to attack the ball when the player is so close to the tryline. Indeed, it is hard IMO to call Halpennys effort a tackle. He never effected a tackle, he could not do so because his prime objective was the ball.

I thought the intention of tackling higher up was to prevent offloading? If you are tackling someone on your line, you'd go for the upper body so that if they did try to get it down you'd hold them up. If you went to remove the ball everytime you'd be penalised left right and centre for multiple man tackles.

Earlier I mentioned the high tackle edict and you said great. Well I am all for eliminating high tackles but I am not in favour of unpublicised edicts, edicts that change every fortnight. We have a set of rules, at the start of season everything should be agreed andf publicised and nothing should change from day 1. The constant tampering on a fortnightly basis is panic, panic and confusion.

I agree with you here with regard to panicking. These 'edicts' come from within the clubs though. The coach passes comments to the chairmen who meet with Cummings and discuss points of play. Cummings then gives his referees guidance as to what everyone wants to clamp down on, e.g. high shots. It may, however, be that this is what the referee picked up on early in the game as a problem and so decided to be strict throughout. At the beginning of a game the referee gets an idea of what kind of game it will be, if he sees a few high shots he'll clamp down on them.

Personally I don't see the problem, the rules say that contact with the head is not permitted and a penalty results so the players do know about it.

How much training do these video referees get? I would like to know.

They're all experienced former referees, so more than everyone else.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob how can you say he was attempting to make a tackle. His arms came over the top of richards and went down to the ball. If your trying to prevent a player from going over the line you skulldrag him by his shirt collar. You certainly do not go over him and push him onto the try line. If your tackling from behind you go low around the legs with head to the side. Halpenny had his head in the wrong position for tackling, he was looking for the ball.

I cannot believe you even contemplated that Halpenny attempted to tackle Richards. On that basis so did Pendlebury v Mark Elia.

He isn't going to tackle around the legs on his own line is he, Richards would have just fallen over the line. If he makes a tackle around the body he has a chance of holding the ball up. Can't say I've seen many attempted collar grabs either.

From the motion of his arms my opinion is that he went to grab the upper body of Richards.

[cpwigan]

Rob on / over the line. You either rip them back with the shirt collar and pull them away from the line and to do that once youve gripped the shirt you pull back in the opposite direct to which they are going. If your going to smother them ball and all from behind you come from underneath the ball and cup the player around his waist bringing your knees up and the keep the ball tight so you can turn him. If you go over the top of somebody you cannot do anything as far as the player going over the line is concerned. Halpennys head was all wrong for a tackle. He would have hurt himself. If he was affecting a tackle then why was it so ineffective. He never grasped or grounded richards. Richard simply stayed free and grounded the loose ball.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob on / over the line. You either rip them back with the shirt collar and pull them away from the line and to do that once youve gripped the shirt you pull back in the opposite direct to which they are going. If your going to smother them ball and all from behind you come from underneath the ball and cup the player around his waist bringing your knees up and the keep the ball tight so you can turn him. If you go over the top of somebody you cannot do anything as far as the player going over the line is concerned. Halpennys head was all wrong for a tackle. He would have hurt himself. If he was affecting a tackle then why was it so ineffective. He never grasped or grounded richards. Richard simply stayed free and grounded the loose ball.

I tell you what CP we'll agree to disagree for now but I will have a look at the tackle again when I get in from training tonight taking into account your comments on tackling.

[primrose-n-blue]

I have watched that try over again and Halpenny's forearm rolls across the ball to his wrist then the ball slips through Richards grasp far too easily.
There was no sudden shot from Halpenny, the ball was lost in the continuous takling movement.

So it's a knock-on for me at that point. Unfortunately Richards did not recover full control of the ball he merely placed his hand upon it as it hit the floor.

If I was a Wigan fan, I would be more concerned with the poor the defense and many unforced handling errors. Moran and Dallas had inexcusable errors.

:hehe: Warriors are top of the league!!

[primrose-n-blue]

Flash posted:
Lee Briers who said on the SLS that it was definitely a try (even if he did plainly enjoy yet another Wigan loss!)

Of course Lee would say that..to wind you all up.
I was being honest....What the hell....Yes I think it was a try too.

[tory boy]

Lets all cast our minds back to Knowsley Road a few years ago Newton was awarded a try under the sticks that was never a try , these things happen , its just worse this year due to our dire position in the league .