Noble claims it was a try

[robjoenz]

Flash posted:
No mate, we are positive about the rules. The ball was knocked out by a hand. Not collision in the tackle. Not by a loose carry. Not by him trying to offload. By a hand. That is the defenition of a reef. Therefore play on. You obviously can't take criticism of referees ( I would guess because you referee at some level?) even when it is justified. I remember haveing a similar discussion with you last week re the 'held incident. As for your observation regarding Halpenny's positioning. A similar reefing was given against Wigan during the Saints match when Richards try was disallowed. He was stood directly behing Keiron Cunningham at the time who is a whole lot wider than Pat Richards and yet that was deemed a reef> Mind you that went against Wigan so no surprises there! I challenge you to defend that one in the light of last nights incident....

I think they are your thoughts on the rules rather than what they actually say. I have been looking through the Law of the Game and there is no definition for reef or ball steal in the Glossary (suprisingly to me) and I cannot decide either way which was the right decision.

If you look at Section 11, Page 26, Note 9.
Where a player steals the ball from a player on whom he is effecting a tackle, play will be allowed to continue...

If it was deemed a steal from Halpenny then it should have been play on and a try. However, if you read Section 11, Page 25, Note 8...

If a tackled player loses possession of the ball at the moment of impact with an opponent or the ground, play shall proceed unless stopped for some other reason e.g. the ball has been knocked forward...

Reading this literally, Richards did lose the ball at the moment of impact because of the Halpenny tackle (I do not think that Halpenny intentionally stole the ball) and the ball did go forward, so this means it should be a knock on. There are no notes to say whether the tackler strikes the ball, only what I have posted above so that's all we can go on.

I have not said that the video referee was right and I have not said he was wrong, I am just trying to understand why he has given the decision he has and from reading the Laws I cannot tell either way. If anyone can find a rule that proves Presley was right or wrong please post the exact wording.

I think that Presley must have given it based on the latter ruling.

If it's not in the rules then he must be working from some guidelines given to him by Cummings, although I thought that was to give benefit to the attacking side?!

[robjoenz]

Flash posted:
What you are saying there then is that the reefing rule doen't exist. I think you will find you are wrong, otherwise several penalties per game are incorrectly given. The reefing rule definitely exists. What year are the rules you are quoting from?

With regards to your other point ("I don't think Halpenny intentionally went for the ball (sic)"). Simple. Explain the incident in the Saints match and I will accept your point of view. You can't have it both ways.

As for the rules, I have the 2005 version and there is no mention of the term 'reef' I think that is Australian slang for ball stealing isn't it? I posted the definition of ball stealing in my previous post.

Flash, I haven't disagreed with you! All I am saying is that the video referee doesn't look at an incident and think, "oh it's Wigan, that's N O T R Y" and if anybody thinks that they are being immature. There is obviously some reason that Presley decided it wasn't a try and the only explanation I can think of is that he has deemed it not to be a steal and that the ball was lost by Richards on impact of the tackle regardless of whether he touched the ball or not. I am not saying he is right or that he is wrong, I don't know and I intend to find out.

I've not looked at the incident in the Saints game in as much detail but I think you are referring to the suspect Aspinwall knock on? Didn't Cayless knock the ball out of Aspinwall's hand deliberately and then another Huddersfield player grounded it? I think the difference there was that Cayless knew he was knocking the ball out whereas Halpenny was just trying to make a tackle.

[waterside glens]

halpenny knew what he was doing, we should have been given the benefit of doubt. thats 2 weeks running the video ref has went against benefit to the attack in our games and it has cost us dear

[robjoenz]

Flash posted:
No, I meant the Good Friday game against Saints where a Wigan try was disallowed as Richards was adjudged to have knocked on when tackling Cunningham despite the fact that he was stood directly behind him and in no way could see the ball. Almost identical to last night in fact. We had to swallow that one when it went against us so my question is this. In a similar situation, why doesn't it go for us? Incidentally I have learned from another thread that it was the very same video ref that gave the decision against us in last season's game with Wakey despite the fact that he had no jusisdiction to make the call. You keep saying that the video refs aren't looking to go against Wigan, but the evidence simply does not support this. Whether this is intentional, a throwback to the days when Wigan were (are?) the most hated team in RL or pure incompetence I don't know. But I ask you again. Name me say even one crucial decision that has gone our way on the video refs say so. In fact name me even one this season. Ican name you plenty that have gone against us.

The only difference I can think of is that the video referee thought Richards must have had a better view of the ball than Halpenny did. I personally think that it should have been a try as I thought Richards was making genuine attempt at a tackle and not going for the ball, especially judging from his eyes.

As for instances that went in our favour, Vaealiki's try at Wakefield springs to mind. I am sure there will be more that I just can't remember because we only seem to mention the ones that went against us on here.

BTW you haven't answered my question.

I know haha

[robjoenz]

Flash posted:
Mate, your colours are nailed so firmly to the mast that I didn't really need an answer!

Good to see you finally agree that a ref actually got something wrong though...keep up the good work!

Re: the Vialeki try. Just remind me of the incident again.

I just understand that a referee gives a decision for a reason so try and understand that decision. It isn't always right and in some instances there are grey areas and I don't always think the attacking side gets benefit of the doubt, but that's my opinion and not the opinion of the video referee.

Of course referees get things wrong, they're only human. However, Paul Cullen made a good point last night in asking whether it was that decision that could send Wigan or down or was it poor kicking from Moran and not taking chances when we had them. Or was it not holding our lead against Leeds when 16 0 up at half time, or was it Calderwood knocking on over the try line a few times. Or was it lapses in the defence allowing stupid tries. Or was it letting Hull destroy us in 40 minutes of rugby. For all the mistakes made on a rugby pitch the smallest proportion made is by the referee.

[robjoenz]

Forgot to say about the Vaealiki try. He got over the try line and as he went to ground it he lost the ball, however, he just managed to get his hand on it before it touched the ground. So even though he'd lost control of the ball he managed to ground it.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

Flash posted:
Of course referees get things wrong, they're only human. However, Paul Cullen made a good point last night in asking whether it was that decision that could send Wigan or down or was it poor kicking from Moran and not taking chances when we had them.

I think this and similar arguments are pretty trite and are just a series of "ifs and buts". You may as well say if we scored a 100 points in the first half this try would not have mattered.

We didn't so when it came down to it it was the decision that cost us the game.

What either team did or did not do prior to the 78th minute can not change that at that point in the game the scores were 10-8 and we scored what I believe was a legitimate try that was disallowed by an incompetent video referee.

If this had been a game without the video ref and the man in the middle had ruled knock on then you could argue it was a genuine mistake. But for the video ref to do this is pathetic.

I also think to adopt Cullen's stance is actually letting the video ref off the hook.

Dave

[robjoenz]

Flash posted:
I have no arguments with that point of view. But if Cullen is saying that video ref decisions should go against us because we played badly in the early part of the season, or even made errors in this match, then he has lost the plot! If we fail to stay up by 2 points then that decision can quite rightly be said to have cost us our SL status by simple virtue of the fact that we would have taken two points from that game regardless of any other factors, were it not for that decision.

I don't think that was Cullen's point, I think he was saying we had enough opportunities to seal victory but didn't take them.

DaveO is also correct in that these decisions do matter when you're in the position we're in. I'm eagerly awaiting Cummings comments on the decisions to hear whether the video referee was right or wrong.

[GeoffN]

robjoenz posted:

Flash posted:
I have no arguments with that point of view. But if Cullen is saying that video ref decisions should go against us because we played badly in the early part of the season, or even made errors in this match, then he has lost the plot! If we fail to stay up by 2 points then that decision can quite rightly be said to have cost us our SL status by simple virtue of the fact that we would have taken two points from that game regardless of any other factors, were it not for that decision.

I don't think that was Cullen's point, I think he was saying we had enough opportunities to seal victory but didn't take them.

DaveO is also correct in that these decisions do matter when you're in the position we're in. I'm eagerly awaiting Cummings comments on the decisions to hear whether the video referee was right or wrong.

Me too, but it's not much help to us - they won't change the scoreline even if Scummings does admit the video ref was wrong.

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:
Me too, but it's not much help to us - they won't change the scoreline even if Scummings does admit the video ref was wrong.

No they won't, but you never know the video referee might have been right. There must be some reason for him disallowing it.