RL In Danger of Becoming a Laughing-Stock

[Southern Softy]

After the hopelessly inept display by Thaler yesterday, what happens in the other semi?

Carvell falls to ground on back after half-tackle - hands are laid on him - ball-carrying arm touches the ground. Carvell then stretches over from lying on back, twists and touches the ball down. No problem - obvious double movement. Ganson bizarrely chickens out - goes to VR.

4 minutes later of endless Video Replays all showing exactly the same thing - Ian Smith decides "benefit of doubt" so - a try.

These are internationally watched games with high profile. I never thought I'd say it but it might be time to import referees from elsewhere or even better, fast-track top-flight players to become referees, instead of the out-of-their-depth well-meaning incompetents that make up the current setup.

[neilwigan]

I believe that the title is a little harsh but I also believe that in a way it is correct. Newcomers to the sport will hate to see the slow tempo that some referees can create. They also don't want to see some of the things that completely changes the game for a negative effect and makes the game poor and boring some times. And even though it didn't make for a poor game it certainly changed the game in a manner of that made a game that changed it very badly for a team.

[Southern Softy]

Must be going mad. Put Ganson when I meant Silverwood. Still, perhaps I could beome a RL referee if I can make mistakes like that.

[Mike]

TBH, taht was a 50-50 call for me. If your momentum causes your body to roll after your arm has touched the ball then thats OK.

However, i think all the replays were to get a view of the ball being touched down because Silverwood had asked for that to be checked. There was no angle that showed the ball being put down clearly, so benefit of the doubt. I reckon thats what was going on - but i could be wrong.

[JackH]

I really didn't see how it was given either. Arm down, rolls and reaches to put the ball down. Definite double movement.

[cpwigan]

The Carvell effort was one I though the RFL now understood was a double movement. Try it with a RL ball, momentum does not lead to that scenario.

[cook123]

It was a try - the tackle wasn't complete it was 50 - 50 thats why he went to video the player didn't tackle carvell he fell over him if anything and momentum wasn't stopped. Clutching at straws with this one.

[i'm spartacus]

According to the laws and in the scenario Carvell was in:

Second movement after tackle - When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try.

If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed.

A player is tackled when he is grounded, ie when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.

Sliding try - a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball even if the ball has first touched the ground in the field of play

There is no momentum rule that would allow a player who is grounded on his back, to pick up the ball carrying arm off the floor and plonk the ball over the try line. There is only one scenario that would allow a try to be awarded when a player is grounded, and that is a sliding try which does allow for momentum. I don't think anyone would deem Carvell's try to be a sliding try, and on the reading of the laws, he was grounded short of the line. There was nothing 50-50 about it and it was just the wrong decision.

That being said, how many of those have we seen awarded? It's very easy for me to do a forensic reading of the rules after the fact, and at the time I saw it, I thought it was a try all day and every day. Then again, I'm not paid to know the rules like the officials are, and you would expect that they have a far greater knowledge than the standards we have seen demonstrated; particularly those shown by Thaler and the two touch judges yesterday.

[Mike]

According to the laws and in the scenario Carvell was in: ...

Yeah, and quote us the rule book about scrums! Unfortunately, our current refereeing system is based on whatever interpretation we have this season (or this week, or even this match seemingly) and they don't bother to alter the actual rules.

No matter what the rules, your always goign to get 50-50 calls even with a video ref there is going to be arguing either way. The "ball steal" from Lockers is another example - for me thats a loose carry every day of the week - he has the ball in one hand reaching for the line. If a forward was trying to offload like that in the middle of the field, and someone knocked his arm, it would be a knock on.

All I'm after is consistency, and i don't think we have any emphasis on that from the officials. They seem to want to justify whatever decisions they make in order to retain a perception of strength. It would be far better to be open with what they are doing to improve consistency. For example to publish a review of every match ecah week with key decisions analysed about how consistent they are with current interpretations and other similar incidents. That way we'd be able to see that the refs really are doing a professional job that they can justify.

[highland convert]

The think about the Locker s ball steal was the delay. The ref played on. Who got in his ear? The refs radio would be a fantastic edition to the commentary. Better than the muppet show. I believe strings were being pulled and advise given. I also believe favour is shown by refs to specific teams. We saw it last year clearly when the refs had their penalty bonanza. Penalties given against one side were missed or ignored by the other. Clothing also plays an important in perception as well. Cherry and white stands out a mile blue and yellow blend with green so fast movement does not show up a readily. It is a recognised fact in clothing design. What will be seen in the ruck by a Wigan arm is not as easy picked up by a Leeds arm. Strange but true, jim