Page 1 of 5
It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:16 pm
by we_need_a_coach
:conf:
At least thats what Nobbie said on the radio this morning, funny that, because I have just read this mornings papers and they say it wasn't.
Nobbie, get real, if the ref say No Try, then it's No Try.
:conf: :conf:
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:22 pm
by Fraggle
This topic is already covered elsewhere. Please do not start a new thread to discuss exactly the same thing.
http://www.wigan-warriors.com/cgi-bin/w ... ject206685
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:23 pm
by robjoenz
...but is it a case of whether there was intent to remove the ball? If it was intentionally stolen by Halpenny then it's not Richards fault, this is we all know.
However, judging from Halpenny's positioning (coming from behind Richards) I don't think it was intentional, therefore, is the onus not on Richard to maintain control of the ball?
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:23 pm
by jodie clark
i agree bad guy it was a try i talked to brian after the game and he said he thought it was a try stevo also said it was a try bt pat richards
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:34 pm
by Wigan Watcher
It was not a try. The ball hit the floor just before he placed his hand on it.
So called good players do not loose a ball in that situation when so much is at stake. We did not deserve to win and that hurts me to say that.
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:53 pm
by wigan saint
The problem is they have created one great big grey area with the rules. the video ref obviousley felt that the wakefield player didn't go for the ball and was just going for the tackle. the tackler couldn't see the ball he was just putting his arms around the player to tackle him.
This needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and it should be scrapped. why should ball carriers be continually penalised just because the tackler didn't mean to knock the ball out... fact is the tacklet knocked the ball out of the wigan players hands which should be 'play on', which means that should have been a try.
although if you want to give wigan that try, you have to go back and deduct 2 points off wigan and give wakefield another 6, because thay should have been a try for wakefield, never an obstruction... wakefield should have been celebtrating a six pointer, instead wigan got an easy penalty kick.
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:54 pm
by wigan saint
The problem is they have created one great big grey area with the rules. the video ref obviousley felt that the wakefield player didn't go for the ball and was just going for the tackle. the tackler couldn't see the ball he was just putting his arms around the player to tackle him.
This needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and it should be scrapped. why should ball carriers be continually penalised just because the tackler didn't mean to knock the ball out... fact is the tacklet knocked the ball out of the wigan players hands which should be 'play on', which means that should have been a try.
although if you want to give wigan that try, you have to go back and deduct 2 points off wigan and give wakefield another 6, because thay should have been a try for wakefield, never an obstruction... wakefield should have been celebtrating a six pointer, instead wigan got an easy penalty kick.
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:59 pm
by mike binder
wigan saint posted:
The problem is they have created one great big grey area with the rules. the video ref obviousley felt that the wakefield player didn't go for the ball and was just going for the tackle. the tackler couldn't see the ball he was just putting his arms around the player to tackle him.
This needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and it should be scrapped. why should ball carriers be continually penalised just because the tackler didn't mean to knock the ball out... fact is the tacklet knocked the ball out of the wigan players hands which should be 'play on', which means that should have been a try.
although if you want to give wigan that try, you have to go back and deduct 2 points off wigan and give wakefield another 6, because thay should have been a try for wakefield, never an obstruction... wakefield should have been celebtrating a six pointer, instead wigan got an easy penalty kick.
wasnt an obstruction was your opinion but looking at your colours dont you think tou was wearing my rose tinted glasses
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:21 pm
by Likely_Lad
wigan saint posted:
The problem is they have created one great big grey area with the rules. the video ref obviousley felt that the wakefield player didn't go for the ball and was just going for the tackle. the tackler couldn't see the ball he was just putting his arms around the player to tackle him.
This needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and it should be scrapped. why should ball carriers be continually penalised just because the tackler didn't mean to knock the ball out... fact is the tacklet knocked the ball out of the wigan players hands which should be 'play on', which means that should have been a try.
although if you want to give wigan that try, you have to go back and deduct 2 points off wigan and give wakefield another 6, because thay should have been a try for wakefield, never an obstruction... wakefield should have been celebtrating a six pointer, instead wigan got an easy penalty kick.
I think that is incorrect. IMO the video ref bottled it and went for the safest option, thus ruling no try and giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense.
Re: It was a Try
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:24 pm
by Jake
reefing the ball in a one on one tackle is play on. Richard's grounded correctly therefore try, is it only Wiganer's who can see it ?