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?
It would depend on the ref, and whether cherry and white shirts were involved.... :sly:
If the ball carrier was a Wigan player, most refs would would give a knock-on...if the tacklers were Wigan it would be a penalty against them for stealing.
Seriously though, AFAIK it's a knock-on unless clearly stolen. That's different to the incident in question, though, where it was clearly pushed out by Halpenny, whether deliberate or not.
Flash posted:
The referee can give play on if it takes place during the act of scoring a try as this is exactly what the benefit of the doubt is meant to cover!
You're right over the first part however this is covered by playing the advantage and whether advantage is allowed to be played depends on the outcome of the first call for when the ball is lost.
i got my mrs to watch the try and ask her what happened . she doesn,t follow the game so she doesn,t know the rules[just like the refs]. she said the guy playing for the other team pushed the ball out of the wigan players hands
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).
Your argument does not stand up to the test of simply saying what you see. If the hand action of the defender was by way of an impact towards the body of the ball carrier then Presley just may have an argument. However the action of the hand was clear to see . Please watch closely. The ref did not. The hand action starts at the top of the football it follows the ball all the way through until it is fully reefed out. It is not a matter of interpritation it is a matter of truth. Tell me the hand action was different to that and I can only assume you watched the slow motion pictures with you eyes closed or like Cummins you just keep lieing until people stop talking about it
jimofwigan posted:
Your argument does not stand up to the test of simply saying what you see. If the hand action of the defender was by way of an impact towards the body of the ball carrier then Presley just may have an argument. However the action of the hand was clear to see . Please watch closely. The ref did not. The hand action starts at the top of the football it follows the ball all the way through until it is fully reefed out. It is not a matter of interpritation it is a matter of truth. Tell me the hand action was different to that and I can only assume you watched the slow motion pictures with you eyes closed or like Cummins you just keep lieing until people stop talking about it
That is one way that it can be seen, however, if you look at where Halpennys hand is moving to, it is moving towards his other hand to effect a grapple on Richards, I think this is sole reason that the try was not given.
waterside glens posted:
i got my mrs to watch the try and ask her what happened . she doesn,t follow the game so she doesn,t know the rules[just like the refs]. she said the guy playing for the other team pushed the ball out of the wigan players hands
If you asked your good lady wife to watch in full speed she wouldn't have a clue what had happened. The touch judge didn't give the try.
Slowing down allows the person watching to dissect the complete movement into many sections which in real time the brain would not able to process. What if you take it as one complete action rather than he moves the hand to the shoulder then thinks the ball's a bit lower so I'll lower my hand a little bit more to knock the ball out. In real time it shows the tackle being effected and the ball flying out, a knock on would have been given. Same result as was given. That's one argument against the use of video technology.
waterside glens posted:
i got my mrs to watch the try and ask her what happened . she doesn,t follow the game so she doesn,t know the rules[just like the refs]. she said the guy playing for the other team pushed the ball tout of the wigan players hands
If you asked your good lady wife to watch in full speed she wouldn't have a clue what had happened. The touch judge didn't give the try.
Touch judges can't award tries.
Slowing down allows the person watching to dissect the complete movement into many sections which in real time the brain would not able to process. What if you take it as one complete action rather than he moves the hand to the shoulder then thinks the ball's a bit lower so I'll lower my hand a little bit more to knock the ball out. In real time it shows the tackle being effected and the ball flying out, a knock on would have been given. Same result as was given. That's one argument against the use of video technology.
The argument for the use of slow motion is that it lets you see things you would have missed at full speed. If the video ref viewed the replay at full speed and made his decsision based on that then you might have an argument but he doesn't (and didn't) and has/had the benefit of slow motion.
Slow motion shows rhe ball being reefed with a downward motion of the hand so given the video ref must have seen this, he was technically incorrect to give any other decsion than play on and try.
Doesn't matter if it's tv or not, there's sufficient doubt from the footage that Halpenny is dislodging the ball in the tackle one-on-one and if that is reefed then it's knocked back by the defender, play on and the try is awarded.
Also if there is doubt, doesn't the benefit of the doubt go to the attacking team??
It's not given anyway, so lets move on and hopefully get a better rub of the green in the remaining half of the season.
