Noble claims it was a try

[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've had a few more looks at it baring in mind your comments cpwigan. As he executes the tackle goes to grab the body of Richards and as he puts his arms around him he brings his hands together which doesn't look intentional. Then looking at his manner as he completed the tackle there is no effort in it, whether this was because he'd seen the ball drop out or because it was an experienced player being sly I don't know, but I can see your point about tackling.

I can't fully make my mind up as to what it should have been, I don't think the rules are clear enough. If we'd got the try I would have understood why, but I can understand why we didn't get it. A grey area.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

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.

I know what I saw. I didn't "think" it. I saw him go for 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.

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.

No I am not. I am saying I saw halfpenny rip the ball and I am applying the rules to that situation. There is no "think" about it.

Where "think" does comes into my argument is when Cummings backs up Presley. I think he is doing this to back his official up as I think he thinks it is more important to do that than go the other way.

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.

[/quote]

Nah. The way he moved his hand he knew exactly what he was doing. What happened to benefit of the doubt to the attacking side anyway? That must have applied to the Tommy Martyn try at the JJB.

I wonder what excuse Cummings gave for his official awarding that? I bet it is a bit of a contrast to what he has said over this.

EDIT Here are some quotes from the BBC match report of the Martyn try.

Martyn lost the ball as he jinked his way through for the killer try but the video referee, who kept the 17,428 JJB Stadium record crowd on tenterhooks as he agonised over his decision, ruled the ball had been dislodged by defender Lee Gilmour.

You always play to the whistle but I told the lads straight away that it was a try Tommy Martyn.

That try levelled the scores and former Wigan player Sean Long kicked his fifth goal from six attempts to secure a famous victory.

Afterwards Martyn said he had never had any doubt over the legality of his match-winning try.

Martyn said: "I never had any doubt. I know when I've dropped a ball."

"Lee Gilmour left his hand there and it touched the ball. "

I am pretty sure is you substituted "Pat Richards" for "Tommy Martyn" he'd tell you he didn't drop the ball either.

Dave

[steve_oh]

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.

Nah, I reckon this doesnt work at all if youre behind the attacker 2 metres from the line - the only way Halpenny could prevent the try was to dislodge the ball, hence his high tackle and desperate (and successful) reef. It should have been play-on and try,but with 60 seconds left Halpenny took the chance that the video-ref would drop a bol****, and he did !

[Matthew]

Most of it has been covered - however for what it's worth here's my 2 bobs worth (or should that be my halpenny's worth).

From a metre out there is no point attempting to tackle a player to bring him down - the only way to stop him from scoring in that situation is to reef the ball. As a professional player Halpenny knows this and dislodged the ball, Richards grounded it - TRY

The Vaealiki try that was mentioned earlier is a different situation - the try had no bearing on the result of the game.

When such a crucial decision is so badly wrong that the coach of the opposing team (and a couple of his players) just about says so (how is Wakefield receiving bad decisions relevant?) - then scummings will always back him up. Refs are just like any other group of heavily criticised people - when they get it seriously wrong they close ranks. Send a question to sky sports and see it either get ignored or expect more clap trap then you would get from cullen on speed.

Having seen the reaction from the Wigan camp - hopefully this will forge an us-against-them attitude in the team and then will continue on with the defensive effort.

However I've got to say that things don't look good for us now

[Mike]

robjoenz posted:
whether this was because he'd seen the ball drop out or because it was an experienced player being sly I don't know ... A grey area.

Too right - any descision under this ball stealing (not actually in the rule book style) "rule" is a grey area - i.e. can go either way on the whim of the referee with the full support of the controller of referees.

It was brought in to encourage players to offload the ball (they didn't have to concern themselves with silly things like trying to hold onto the ball in the tackle - unless, of course(!), there is only a single defender tackling them or the defender didn't have a direct line of site of the ball or the ref felt a bit funny or something). Personally, I think the emphasis on easy offloads has made the game far scrappier being littered with handling errors from forwards just lobbing the ball anywhere behind the tackle. Furthermore, this style of "offload at all costs" (we might get a penalty anyway) has detracted from a quality offload, setup by a good dominant forward drive.

I say again - this rule is unrefereeable and is bringing the game into disrepute. Get rid.

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:
I am saying I saw halfpenny rip the ball and I am applying the rules to that situation. There is no "think" about it.

Of course think comes into it or the try would have been awarded! The video referee didn't press the wrong button on his keypad, nor did he do it because he wanted Wigan to lose, he chose No Try - Scrum Defence because he thought that Halpenny had no intention to steal the ball, probably because of the way his hands grasped together around Richards body.

I would question whether 'benefit of the doubt' is ever used. I think the video referee gets a definate picture into his head (rightly or wrongly) and goes with how he sees it. Obviously this is open to interpretation ('thought') and as Mike said makes it very difficult to referee.

Mike - you're swaying my opinion on the benefits of a rule change.

[GeoffN]

On Boots'n'All tomorrow...

"There will be a look back at last weekend's action, which included the most controversial video try since Saints and Apollo Perelini won the title back in 1996.

Should Pat Richards' try in the massive relegation battle between Wigan and Wakefield have stood? Was the official right to erase it? The team will talk you through it and give their expert opinions."
http://www.skysports.com/skysports/arti ... 09,00.html

As Ian Laybourne says in his article on the Sporting Life site:
Outside Wigan and therefore away from all the emotion, the verdict on Presley's decision has been largely split down the middle...

[cpwigan]

Just out of interest what has been the reaction from non Wiganers? I work with Saints and Wire fans and they all agree that it should have been a try but then chuckle whilst saying something like but it's Wigan so it's great.

[Leyther Pie]

Leythers in the local and Stains fans at work say they like to see Wigan fail but fail fairly. They all say we were robbed. They were disgusted and for once i agreed with them.

[cpwigan]

One matter of interest that I keep coming back to is that Cummings keeps stating that the onus is upon Richards to retain possession yet that is contrary to benefit of doubt to the attacking team IMO.