THe big problem here is the rule itself. Its pathetic and laughable to have a rule that requires referees to judge a players 'intentions' from their position with repesct to the ball/other players/the direction of their eyes/the situation of the match etc... Every descision is a matter of opinion, and often the ref can't see whether hands were on the ball. As was proven this weekend and many times before, its even a 50/50 "in my opinion" descision when you can watch an incident in slow motion as many times as you like. You can't referee a game based on subjective opinions like this - we may as well just award league points for "style".
A blatent example of the inconsistency that the subjectivity this rule introduces has already been mentioned by Flash and robjonez - the comparison between Richards knocking the ball out against St Helens (being judged to be deliberate, although the player was not looking at the ball) vs the incident on Saturday or Asthon's tackle in the same saints game (where he brilliantly knocked the ball out of the attackers hands who was crossing the line - totally intentionally and very skillfully - but was adjudged by the officials to have been unintentional, therefore a 20-metre tap not a drop out).
The ball stealing rule should be dropped completely and returned to the old rule that all ball losses are knock-ons if they go forwards, and play on if not.
This rule has to go - it is bringing the game into disrepute!
Noble claims it was a try
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
I accept your apology in advance Flashrobjoenz posted:Flash posted:
And BTW I make no apologies for using the word 'correct'.
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
Mike, very well worded and a good example of where this rule has been employed in our favour (Flash was asking yesterday).
It does raise the argument of what value the video referee offers. In the main I think they are a good thing, resolving issues such as whether a ball was grounded (Terry Newton's fingertip control, Good Friday 2004, is a good example) in situations such as the one this weekend they have the potential to open up a new can of worms. The main gripe people will have is the same gripe they have with the referee in the middle, which is they are tasked with applying common sense to decisions and can only use their interpretation of what happened. This will inevitably vary from person to person and two instances one person may see as identical another person may see as different (e.g. Richards at Saints, Halpenny at Belle Vue).
The only method around this would be to change the rules. However, if you place the onus on the ball carrier to retain the ball you'd end up with a lot of messy three man tackles with balls spilling out all over the place.
It does raise the argument of what value the video referee offers. In the main I think they are a good thing, resolving issues such as whether a ball was grounded (Terry Newton's fingertip control, Good Friday 2004, is a good example) in situations such as the one this weekend they have the potential to open up a new can of worms. The main gripe people will have is the same gripe they have with the referee in the middle, which is they are tasked with applying common sense to decisions and can only use their interpretation of what happened. This will inevitably vary from person to person and two instances one person may see as identical another person may see as different (e.g. Richards at Saints, Halpenny at Belle Vue).
The only method around this would be to change the rules. However, if you place the onus on the ball carrier to retain the ball you'd end up with a lot of messy three man tackles with balls spilling out all over the place.
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
basically, i think that we have a very bad side. it shows you are in trouble when you lose to wakefield and they only score 10. i will not give whelan my money to let him spend it on people like moran, who does not deserve to wear the wigan shirt.
maurice, you once had the golden touch, but now its in reverse.
maurice, you once had the golden touch, but now its in reverse.
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
DaveO, consider this incident independently of anything else and read the rules...DaveO posted:
Had Halfpenny just clattered the player and the player dropped the ball than that was a knock on but given what actually happened and the precident set by the Martyin try the video ref and Cummins were and are wrong.
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...
Presley has deemed that Halpenny did not intentionally steal the ball and applying the above, word for word, Presley is 100% correct in the decision he has made and thus Cummings is totally right to back up his referee.
You're incorrect there DaveO, you are forgetting the penalty Klien gave at the death in the match between Quins and Bradford, Cummings came out and said that Klein made a mistake. Cummings is merely applying the rules as they are written in the Laws of the Game, whether you or I or anyone else agree with them is irrelevant.This is no surprise because it is as plain as the nose on your face that Cummings will back his officials regardless of the facts of the situation. He has not go the brains to realise if he played a straight bat the credability of the refs would go up, not down if when they made a mistake it was acknowledged.
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
Last time I went to Wakey (2002 I think it was), the score was something like 2-0 at halftime. It's often a difficult place for teams to go, look how often Bradford have lost there.peudent posted:
basically, i think that we have a very bad side. it shows you are in trouble when you lose to wakefield and they only score 10. i will not give whelan my money to let him spend it on people like moran, who does not deserve to wear the wigan shirt.
maurice, you once had the golden touch, but now its in reverse.
http://fraggle.fotopic.net
"You rescue me, you are my faith, my hope, my liberty.
And when there's darkness all around, you shine bright for me, you are a guiding light to me....
You are a Tower of Strength to me" - Wayne Hussey, The Mission.
Shepherd's Bush Empire - 27/Feb/08 - 1/Mar/08
[hr]
"You rescue me, you are my faith, my hope, my liberty.
And when there's darkness all around, you shine bright for me, you are a guiding light to me....
You are a Tower of Strength to me" - Wayne Hussey, The Mission.
Shepherd's Bush Empire - 27/Feb/08 - 1/Mar/08
[hr]
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
yes i know, but now, did we ever look like we were going to win? its like they just did enough to get that margin.
and i know, we could have won at the end, but i mean in general.
and i know, we could have won at the end, but i mean in general.
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
Rob - That's not strictly true. The wording that you point out is "player loses posession at the moment of impact with an opponent ...". Viewing the video clearly shows that Richards does not lose posession at the moment of impact - the tackle is well underway when Halpennys hand come into contact with the ball, then a downwards "raking" motion from Halpenny causes the ball to come free. This arm motion surely cannot be defined as the "moment of impact", it is an entirely different action to that of "impacting" a player in the tackle. So, by this letter of the law, the descision is incorrect.robjoenz posted:DaveO, consider this incident independently of anything else and read the rules...DaveO posted:
Had Halfpenny just clattered the player and the player dropped the ball than that was a knock on but given what actually happened and the precident set by the Martyin try the video ref and Cummins were and are wrong.
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...
Presley has deemed that Halpenny did not intentionally steal the ball and applying the above, word for word, Presley is 100% correct in the decision he has made and thus Cummings is totally right to back up his referee.
Anyway, the argument used by the officials (that I have heard so far) is not the the ball came lose at the "moment of impact", but that the ball was "unintentionally knocked out" by halpenny and it is Richards "duty" to control the ball. Can you point me to a section in the rule book that outlines how the intent of a player affects a knock-on?
The only answer is to get rid of the stupid, uninforcable rule and get a bit of consistency back. Was the game really worse when ball stealing in a three man tackle was allowed - more exciting maybe (due to the change of your team getting or losing the ball in any tackle), and certainly less frustrating (when the ref gives a random stripping the ball/knock on descision for no detectable reason).
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
Which was incorrect and where the problems begin.robjoenz posted:DaveO, consider this incident independently of anything else and read the rules...DaveO posted:
Had Halfpenny just clattered the player and the player dropped the ball than that was a knock on but given what actually happened and the precident set by the Martyin try the video ref and Cummins were and are wrong.
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...
Presley has deemed that Halpenny did not intentionally steal the ball
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.and applying the above, word for word, Presley is 100% correct in the decision he has made and thus Cummings is totally right to back up his referee.
Presley applied the wrong rule. Cummings has done the same in backing his ref up.
Ok fair cop on Klien but I still believe Cummings is backing Presley up incorrectly for the wrong reasons.You're incorrect there DaveO, you are forgetting the penalty Klien gave at the death in the match between Quins and Bradford, Cummings came out and said that Klein made a mistake. Cummings is merely applying the rules as they are written in the Laws of the Game, whether you or I or anyone else agree with them is irrelevant.This is no surprise because it is as plain as the nose on your face that Cummings will back his officials regardless of the facts of the situation. He has not go the brains to realise if he played a straight bat the credability of the refs would go up, not down if when they made a mistake it was acknowledged.
Anyway, are you saying you think Presley was correct in saying Halfpenny did not go for the ball and that Richards knocked on?
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.
If you think the ball was ripped, then I don't see how you can argue they are applying the rules correctly.
Dave
Re: Noble claims it was a ...
My personal opinion (which is what it always boils down to) is that it is Halpenny's hands that are initiating the tackle and as such the first thing his hand touches is the ball so you could argue that is initial contact. I think most will agree that Halpenny was intent on grappling Richards in order to bring him down.Mike posted:
Rob - That's not strictly true. The wording that you point out is "player loses posession at the moment of impact with an opponent ...". Viewing the video clearly shows that Richards does not lose posession at the moment of impact - the tackle is well underway when Halpennys hand come into contact with the ball, then a downwards "raking" motion from Halpenny causes the ball to come free. This arm motion surely cannot be defined as the "moment of impact", it is an entirely different action to that of "impacting" a player in the tackle. So, by this letter of the law, the descision is incorrect.
I consider this to be the same thing. I think the rule I posted above is the one Cummings must be referring to when he says 'the onus is on Richards to retain the ball.'Anyway, the argument used by the officials (that I have heard so far) is not the the ball came loose at the "moment of impact", but that the ball was "unintentionally knocked out" by halpenny and it is Richards "duty" to control the ball. Can you point me to a section in the rule book that outlines how the intent of a player affects a knock-on?
I think that Knock Ons and Forward Passes are in Section 11, Page 25/26 (I've not got my book to hand).
You'll get arguments for and against each option, can you recall what the reason for the change was in the first place?The only answer is to get rid of the stupid, uninforcable rule and get a bit of consistency back. Was the game really worse when ball stealing in a three man tackle was allowed - more exciting maybe (due to the change of your team getting or losing the ball in any tackle), and certainly less frustrating (when the ref gives a random stripping the ball/knock on descision for no detectable reason).