Video Ref

[DaveO]

On rlfans a poster claims to have an official reply from Cummins saying the video ref got the penalty try wrong v Quins. It says it should have been a knock on against the quins player.

It also says Cummings is sticking by the Pat Richards decision for the same reason, i.e. knock on v Richards.

Now I for one don't see how in either case having the ball knocked out of your hand in a two man tackle consititutes a knock on. If you have the ball ripped out in a two man tackle in the field of play then it's a penalty and one we see every week.

It does matter if the defender meant to reef it out or not, if the ref sees a hand in there then he will blow for a penalty.

So why Cummings thinks both these are knock ons I really don't know. To my mind they both ought to have been penalties to the attacking player which in Richards case would mean a penalty try beacuse he was fouled in the act of scoring. For Quins given the time on the clock it would probably have meant two points instead of 6.

Dave

[Alex the Warrior]

Whwn I first started going, Kershaw was the referee we all hated, so naturally now that his eye sight has gone even worse, he gets to be video referee. It seems to be him every week and the percentage of wrong decisions is staggering.

Dobson had started off too high and was lowering his hand to try and get it under the ball. Under the rule about touching the ball having to be deliberate for an offence to have occured, this was clearly an incorrect decision. The first one I expected, though they never seem to be able to spot for a fact that the ball hasn't been grounded against us!

[Mrs Feka!!]

something needs to be done about this, if dobson hadnt kicked that penalty, we would have won the game because of stupid decions by the video ref, also they need to be consistent, if they had given the pat richards try we would be level on points with wakey now, looking to go up the table next week :sly: :sly: :sly:

[GeoffN]

I've sent an e-mail to Cummings via his weekly Sky column - I suspect I won't be the only one.

[Welski]

My take on it exactly Dave, the same rules should apply to stripping the ball in a two man tackle anywhere on the field. There aren't separate rules for reefing the ball 'in the act of scoring' are there?

On another tack I still maintain there is a bias against Wigan where the use of the video ref is concerned. e.g. Had a Wigan player 'scored' Castleford's first try yesterday Ganson would have gone straight to the screen and the result?...rightly No Try awarded. As it was he gave it straight away. Fletcher strolls over plonks the ball down unopposed a few weeks back ....in full view of him and he goes upstairs.

Far from a lack of consistency I think the opposite is true If its Wigan - wherever possible go to the screen and come up with some reason to disallow it

[Welski]

Flash posted:
I would be interested to see how many disputed calls have gone against us this season (

On my household "Rant-O-Meter" (that my girlfriend monitors whilst I'm watching Wigan's televised games)there has been a 100% increase in red lining this season in relation to the video ref!

[Mike]

I have one of those too - although mine measures length as well as volume. Some video ref rants this season have gone on for several days...

[Welski]

Flash posted:

Mike posted:
Mind you, it sometimes takes that long to work out a way to give the decision against Wigan.

If we are not careful we are going to get 'pinged' for going on about an anti Wigan bias, but I defy any neutral to take a look at the decisions this season and claim there isnt a conspiracy going on!

Funny thing is we are going to stay up despite it!

[GeoffN]

In all this ranting about Kershaw, it's perhaps interesting to note that one of our favourite referees hasn't been criticised at all...I thought KK actually had a resonable game, for once.

[jimofwigan]

Jake posted:
Once again we are being killed by the video ref, I bet Jerry Kershaw has got a Wakefield post code.

I keep getting told how difficult it is to be a video ref. I 'm sure it can be. But how difficult is it to simply say what you see. The penalty Try ??? What penalty try? only a few weeks before Pat Richards was told clearly on national telivision by the big head of refs Stuart Cummins it was his responsibility to hold on to the ball in those tight tackle situations. Was Kershaw excluded from that information? Was Kershaw therefore in total disagreement of what Cummins said? If he agreed with Cummins analysis then it can only draw two possible conclusion
a) The man is incompitant
b) The man is bias

I just don't now which one it is but both are sackable offences when you are a ref'