WiganWarriorsFans.com

butt monkey posted:

robjoenz posted:
he bends to put the ball down and see in his peripheral vision a knee coming towards his head. That could cause him to think twice about bending down all the way, and the ball is dropped.

Because the above quoted statement from yourself makes you out to be very naive also - if you are falling for this type of player error

Not naive... I am aware both sets of players will try and get an advantage whenever they can. You've just got to take a balance of who is most worthy of the call.

A perfect example is Fielden at Leeds earlier on in the season. He'd been warned for keeping his arms in at the ruck. The he tackled Thackray and left his arm in, he claimed Thackray was keeping hold of it. He may have been but Fielden made no attempt to remove his arm. He was trying to be clever but Silverwood decided he was taking the mickey and sin-binned him.

If you compare Ganson's performance last night with Klein's the night before you can see why Klein is such a top official.

I don't think Ganson had a bad game, I think he had a difficult game to control. Both sides wanted to slow down their opponents at the ruck. Funnily enough Hull fans were complaining Ganson gave Wigan the game as we were walking to the car park.

Look at Klein's positioning though, Ganson followed a fairly wide cross-section of the field but Klein covers all of it. He pops up from nowhere to get the perfect angle. Take Hull's second try, he was the wrong side of the ruck and had to go to the screen. Klein wouldn't have needed the screen for that.

When it comes to controlling the game, I think Ganson commands the players better than Klein but I didn't think he prevented enough offences occuring last night. Klein prevented things like offside at the scrum on Friday by shouting them to hold, Ganson didn't, he placed the onus on the players to know when they were offside rather than giving them the opportunity to get back onside. That's how the Australian referees operate, getting the players to abide by the rules without helping them.

Rob, at the age of 13, they brought in football league referees to officiate matches I participated in v teams from Liverpool. Nothing to be proud of and in fact my own attitude or rather attempts to behave differently negated any prospect of taking my sports career to a professional level. Genetics made me the way I am. Indeed, my father was far better and far more successful than I was.

The best players in the game 'ran' many many referees. Wally Lewis was the greatest I have seen in terms of controlling a referee. Alex Murphy springs to mind to. You can even see today how Trent gets more latitude from even Ganson than the majority of players do.

Any human being can be pressurised. It is a statistical fact that the home team accrues more favourable decisions than the away team. Refereeing is incredibly difficult, just like teaching, just like many professions. Under extreme pressure my own decision making is not as good as when I am confident and feeling relaxed.

You honestly need to accept that referees are fallable.

The Webb incident? You accept I take it Rob that Webb never touched the Saints player playing the ball? Therefore how can he be interfering bar making fresh air move?

Where you then contradict yourself is by saying a playing breaking the rule re not being inside the 10 between marker and the defence line is not interfering with play EVEN though he often physically blocks the dummy half running.

You cannot square the two incidents IMO? You create too much 'grey' which confuses players, coaches and supporters.

Let's look at the player not retreating the 10 yards. Can you explain why that player is always stood on the open side blocking the A defender channel. The optimum position for a dummy half scoot? Why does he not run diagonally to the blind side? Why when he knows that the dummy half is scooting at him does he not run at full pace backwards. Rather he labours? why does he stay in contact with the dummy half? Why not move sideways? Why do offside players no longer raise their arms in time honoured fashion. The attacking team have been denied an opportunity and it has been denied by deliberately breaking the rules.

The attacking team have been denied an opportunity and it has been denied by deliberately breaking the rules. = No penalty IYO yet a player who knees fresh air which is not against the rules - A penalty IYO.

Again last night. It may have been technically that Wigan for the first try broke the rule by having players in the 10. No penalty IYO because as you would say he is not interfering with play.

So thus far the only way to interfere with play IYO is to knee fresh air

When we talk about offside. You say if a player IYO is offside BUT not interfering with play it should be play on. BY that token the obstruction penalty in the Saints Leeds match was incorrect because nobody was interfering with play.

So if we take your stance, if a team stands offside on the open from a scrum BUT the opposition go blind it should be play on. If a team breaks from the scrum early and covers moves in and around the scrum base bu the team with the ball flings the ball wide it should be play on. I hope you can see how by being liberal and creating grey areas brings the rules into conflict because referees start to arbitarily contradict their intended purpose.

If attacker X looks up and sees his left side has an overlap BUT he also sees 2 defenders blatantly offside so he cannot see a way of exploiting that attacking opportunity and ends up going right where the defence is stacked BUT onside can you not see that even though the team with ball did not go left they were denied an attacking opportunity. It is just the same when defenders block the A channel. What would happen if referees started penalising players blocking the A channel :sly: Remember coaches / players push the rules to the limit. IT is the referees job to enforce the rules and minimise how much gamesmanship is allowed. Under pressure in high profile matches that pressure is 100 fold.

Rob what dfid you think of the pass that led to Hull breaking and Calderwood getting sin binned? In thought it was forward BUT I am a dinosaur

cpwigan posted:
You honestly need to accept that referees are fallable.

I've never denied that... they don't make anything near as many mistakes as you make out though.

cpwigan posted:
The Webb incident? You accept I take it Rob that Webb never touched the Saints player playing the ball? Therefore how can he be interfering bar making fresh air move?

No, he didn't make contact. There was intent to though. You can penalise intent. As you know players will try anything and if they get away with it they'll try it again. He didn't try it again did he.

Where you then contradict yourself is by saying a playing breaking the rule re not being inside the 10 between marker and the defence line is not interfering with play EVEN though he often physically blocks the dummy half running.

It's about intent... a player has the right to occupy a space on the field, the dummy half has the right to run around the retreating player, they nearly always run straight at his back though, their right. The defending team has a man less in the line, why not run for that gap?

Why not move sideways? Why do offside players no longer raise their arms in time honoured fashion.

If they moved sideways so would the dummy runner, back to square one.

Why run with hands in the air... token gesture with little to no meaning.

Again last night. It may have been technically that Wigan for the first try broke the rule by having players in the 10. No penalty IYO because as you would say he is not interfering with play.

That confuses me that... I was always off the opinion that once within the ten on a kick you were pressuring the receiver and hence offside, CF - Wakefield -v- Warrington. Going to ask about that one.

So if we take your stance, if a team stands offside on the open from a scrum BUT the opposition go blind it should be play on. If a team breaks from the scrum early and covers moves in and around the scrum base bu the team with the ball flings the ball wide it should be play on. I hope you can see how by being liberal and creating grey areas brings the rules into conflict because referees start to arbitarily contradict their intended purpose.

Why penalise if you don't have to? No interferene then why stop the game?

Do you want more penalties in the game? I don't.

If attacker X looks up and sees his left side has an overlap BUT he also sees 2 defenders blatantly offside so he cannot see a way of exploiting that attacking opportunity and ends up going right where the defence is stacked BUT onside can you not see that even though the team with ball did not go left they were denied an attacking opportunity.

If they were trying to get one over on the referee like you keep saying then surely they'd run for the offside players to get a penalty? The dummy half runs for the retreating player expecting a penalty, surely they'd go for players when they actually were offside.

IT is the referees job to enforce the rules and minimise how much gamesmanship is allowed. Under pressure in high profile matches that pressure is 100 fold.

50-60 penalties a game then? If you went black and white that's what you'd get. You'd be the first to complain about a referee spoiling the game's flow.

Rob do you remember when everybody was livid at Cunnigham follow the SL match at KR. You retorted than nobody could know what his intent was? So if you believed that then why are you now saying that you can read the intent of Brent Webb?

robjoenz posted:

cpwigan posted:
The Webb incident? You accept I take it Rob that Webb never touched the Saints player playing the ball? Therefore how can he be interfering bar making fresh air move?

No, he didn't make contact. There was intent to though. You can penalise intent. As you know players will try anything and if they get away with it they'll try it again. He didn't try it again did he.

Was it not intent by Matty Smith to "con" the referee, for a penalty or another set?

Players are of the ability to do this deliberately imo - just look at the "reefing" controversies, how often is the ball "dropped/released" in order to gain a penalty? Rather than a genuine attempt to "ball steal".

cpwigan posted:
Rob do you remember when everybody was livid at Cunnigham follow the SL match at KR. You retorted than nobody could know what his intent was? So if you believed that then why are you now saying that you can read the intent of Brent Webb?

Again, intent... the difference being Cunningham could have legitimately gone into the tackle like that, had Richards not fell into the tackle it would have hit him below the neck. There was absolutely not reason in the world for Webb to raise his leg like that.