Noble claims it was a try

[jimofwigan]

Ian number10 posted:
who exactly are these people that have the power to say yes or no in these crucial decisions,for gods sake, even stevo thought it was a try,are the video refs former players,journalists,keen amateurs,who the hell are they?and what sort of qualification do they have to do the job.No adequate time was taken to come to this decision,but how many video ref calls have there been so far this season that have been more crucial.That man has very possibly cost us our super league status,and i know we are rubbish,and one decision can't make or break a season,but to have a game taken away from us by someone who isn't even on the pitch is just .........i don't know..i am just so ..angry...disappointed...disheartened...BUT I WILL NOT STOP BEING A SUPPORTER OF MY TEAM, COME ON WIGAN.

Steve Presley is the employee of Stuart Cummins. Stuart Cummins is a serial liar and a Buffoon. Remember the Solamona Try when Kirkpatric shouted "held" so the Wigan pack eased off to allow Solomona to put the ball down. The equally stupid Kirkpatric then gave it to the Vidieo Ref who watches the incident with no sound . The defender of wrong decisions goes on TV to say he did not shout held but Five. Either way tackle complete play the ball. Too late the match lost and cost Wigan a playoff place. This same idiot now claims Presley did not see what the rest of us saw and is right. The whole bunch of them could do with a simple dose of honesty and integrity.

[robjoenz]

Flash!!!! Ahh ahh!!! Sorry... the other day you asked for an example when the ruling of a knock on has gone in Wigan's favour when there has been a suspected ball steal.

Look no further than last Saturdays game 23rd minute, Ganson gives the knock-on against Atkins, but he could have just as easily given a penalty against Goulding for having hands in at the tackle. His judgement was that it was a knock on though and Atkins should have controlled the ball better.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:
Flash!!!! Ahh ahh!!! Sorry... the other day you asked for an example when the ruling of a knock on has gone in Wigan's favour when there has been a suspected ball steal.

Look no further than last Saturdays game 23rd minute, Ganson gives the knock-on against Atkins, but he could have just as easily given a penalty against Goulding for having hands in at the tackle. His judgement was that it was a knock on though and Atkins should have controlled the ball better.

Which replay was Ganson watching when he made this decision?

He made a judgement call during the flow of the game. Was he wrong? Did Gouldng knock the ball out? Or was Ganson right to give the knock on?

Whther Ganson was correct or not, the video ref screwed up with the benefit of a replay. There is a difference.

Dave

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:
Which replay was Ganson watching when he made this decision?

He made a judgement call during the flow of the game. Was he wrong? Did Gouldng knock the ball out? Or was Ganson right to give the knock on?

Whther Ganson was correct or not, the video ref screwed up with the benefit of a replay. There is a difference.

Dave

Dave, one thing you seem unable to appreciate is that some people have different opinions to you, this however doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make you wrong.

The point I am trying to make is that a judgement given by one person will differ to that given by some other person. You can only give what you think is right.

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:
He made a judgement call during the flow of the game. Was he wrong? Did Gouldng knock the ball out? Or was Ganson right to give the knock on?

Whther Ganson was correct or not, the video ref screwed up with the benefit of a replay. There is a difference.

It was a 50-50 decision, could have been given either way. Goulding tackled the ball area, Atkins lost the ball with Gouldings hands on it.

Whether in the flow of the game or on watching the video replay, you give what you think the decision is. Even the Sky Sports team were split down the middle.

[mickh]

'Ow do, not been on for a while, just spent the last hour reading all this thread, a good debate. Robjoenz are you mr cummins? just joking! I think it was a try but would'nt it have been much better if Richards had ignored Halpenny, kept two hands on the ball and just fallen over the line instead of being macho! The resulting option that he took could cost us Super League status, not a very safety first decision on he's part me thinks.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

DaveO posted:
Which replay was Ganson watching when he made this decision?

He made a judgement call during the flow of the game. Was he wrong? Did Gouldng knock the ball out? Or was Ganson right to give the knock on?

Whther Ganson was correct or not, the video ref screwed up with the benefit of a replay. There is a difference.

Dave

Dave, one thing you seem unable to appreciate is that some people have different opinions to you, this however doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make you wrong.

Pot, kettle, black. This thread is over nine pages long and you have made a fair few posts in it. You have stuck to your guns consistently replying to several posters basically justifying what went on each time. So the exact same charge could be laid at your feet but why would anyone say that? It's a discussion board and a good debate. Or at least I thought that is what we were doing.

The point I am trying to make is that a judgement given by one person will differ to that given by some other person. You can only give what you think is right.

You made a post citing an example of a similar decision to the video ref to justify your position and I merely pointed out there was an important difference between the two. The lack of a replay.

I think that is pretty reasonable point to make in a discussion on a forum and is nothing to do with lack of appreciation of different opinions.

Dave

[robjoenz]

Flash posted:
Actually Rob, I didn't. I asked for an example of an incorrect decision that went Wigan's way that made a difference to the result and I'm still waiting.....

As I have said it was a 50-50 and Stevo (if you value his opinion) was of the opinion it should have been a penalty as would many Wakefield fans. It didn't make a difference to the result because we didn't score from the resulting territory. Suggesting it wouldn't go in Wigan's favour in the last minute of the game sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, I thought that was just for Cas fans

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:
Pot, kettle, black. This thread is over nine pages long and you have made a fair few posts in it. You have stuck to your guns consistently replying to several posters basically justifying what went on each time. So the exact same charge could be laid at your feet but why would anyone say that? It's a discussion board and a good debate. Or at least I thought that is what we were doing.

I'm actually sat on the fence, I have laid down why Presley gave that decision, I haven't said whether I agreed with him, I am not entirely sure to be honest. I can see why he has gone with that choice but I could have seen why he'd have given it the other way. It's just how the video referee sees it in his own mind as he watches the replays.

You made a post citing an example of a similar decision to the video ref to justify your position and I merely pointed out there was an important difference between the two. The lack of a replay.

I don't see that as that significant a differnce, in both instances the (video) referee has given the ruling he has deemed correct from whatever view he has of the incident. No matter how many time you'd watch the Goulding-Atkins incident you'd always end up with two camps, one for the knock-on, one for the ball steal. The (video) referee will be in one of those two camps. It is similar with the Presley incident, referees are split down the middle with which way they would give it, you have to give it as you see it, which I appreciate you are doing, but try and appreciate that Presley is not wrong, he just has a different view of it to you.

Someone was also telling me that there was an incident where Moran made a tackle, his shoulder contacted the ball and the knock-on was given against Wakefield (I've not found this yet though).

[robjoenz]

Fawdoffshed posted:
I would have thought you only give what you KNOW is right...or wrong.

Take this situation...

A referee sees the ball pop out of a tackle, unclear whether it was poor control of the ball on the carriers part or because of hands that were in that area. The ball carrier regathers the ball. What does the referee give?

The referee can't give play on because the ball was either ripped out or it was knocked on. How does he make that decision (assuming TJs have no better view and there is no video referee)? He has to make a decision but he does not KNOW what actually went on because no matter where he could have stood his view would have been obstructed by players in the ruck.

What would everyone give?