Wed 28 Jul: SL: Warrington Wolves v Wigan Warriors KO 19:45 (TV)

[JonM]

There isn't really much to debate here is there? Surely no-one seriously thinks you can kick a player in the head, pick up the ball that he drops as a direct result and go on score a try? It's a clear mistake by the officials.

I thought both of Marshall's tries were excellent. Also that Warrington showed a lot of resolve in defence - they haven't always looked like a team who'd grind out a win in difficult circumstances in recent seasons.

 

[Barry Badrinath]

the pearl clutching from the WDL is hilarious, 

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, JonM said:

There isn't really much to debate here is there? Surely no-one seriously thinks you can kick a player in the head, pick up the ball that he drops as a direct result and go on score a try? It's a clear mistake by the officials.

I thought both of Marshall's tries were excellent. Also that Warrington showed a lot of resolve in defence - they haven't always looked like a team who'd grind out a win in difficult circumstances in recent seasons.

 

It wasn’t a kick by any rational definition

It also wasn’t a clear mistake unless you know something that nobody else knows 

[LeeF]

13 hours ago, my missus said:

terrible decision a player is kicked in the head and nothing done about it, clearly marshall took the ball safely and held onto it until the kick in the head charnley will get a ban and possibly ratchford as well for a deliberate trip.

on the whole i thought it was a decent game if wigan had kicked the goals wire would have been under a lot more pessure and possibly folded.

mamo is a scroat and i predict a very short career for him.

Well he has been playing over here for 5 or 6 seasons and played elsewhere before so not a very short career by any definition 

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Barry Badrinath said:

the pearl clutching from the WDL is hilarious, 

I think it’s straws, but would beg to differ in any case, in that no one is arguing that I have seen that the result was unfair. Rather a key moment could have gone the other way. The more I think about it the odder it seems that the ref didn’t go to VR, given how the ball came loose. 

[my missus]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

Well he has been playing over here for 5 or 6 seasons and played elsewhere before so not a very short career by any definition 

why do you think warrington are getting rid he is obviously not quite right and will be shipped out of cas after one season.

[my missus]

34 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I think it’s straws, but would beg to differ in any case, in that no one is arguing that I have seen that the result was unfair. Rather a key moment could have gone the other way. The more I think about it the odder it seems that the ref didn’t go to VR, given how the ball came loose. 

i don't think the ball actually comes loose mamo takes it out of marshalls arm which in itsself is a penalty.

[Jinking Jimmy]

4 hours ago, LeeF said:

Why must they have seen it?

Have you seen the precise angle of viewing that they had?

Seeing as the incident took place very close to the touch line it’s reasonable to assume that the touch judge should have seen something.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Jinking Jimmy

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, my missus said:

why do you think warrington are getting rid he is obviously not quite right and will be shipped out of cas after one season.

3 seasons at Wire? 3 seasons at Hudds? 4 or 5 seasons before that. All in that’s a longer professional career not a short one as you claimed

 

[LeeF]

34 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Seeing as the incident took place very close to the touch line it’s reasonable to assume that the touch judge should have seen something.

Nope it’s not reasonable to assume although you were adamant so do I detect a change of tone?

Anyway he may have seen it and was ok with play on

[Jinking Jimmy]

18 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Nope it’s not reasonable to assume although you were adamant so do I detect a change of tone?

Anyway he may have seen it and was ok with play on

The tv pictures confirm contact to the head ( I think accidentally ) so he should have told the referee because that’s what caused Marshall to release the ball. Seeing that a try was scored it was surely worth a look.

[LeeF]

16 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

The tv pictures confirm contact to the head ( I think accidentally ) so he should have told the referee because that’s what caused Marshall to release the ball. Seeing that a try was scored it was surely worth a look.

You don’t know he saw it so how could he have told the referee?

The first real time TV pictures were not clear and some of the replays were at best mixed

[Jim Prendle]

4 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

the pearl clutching from the WDL is hilarious, 

I have no idea what pearl clutching is, but this kind of comment coming from a Warrington fan is no massive surprise.

Wire would have won the game fair and square anyway, but to claim that was a fair try is just Wire all over.

[Jinking Jimmy]

5 minutes ago, LeeF said:

You don’t know he saw it so how could he have told the referee?

The first real time TV pictures were not clear and some of the replays were at best mixed

Let’s put it this way. If he didn’t see it from where he was stood then he shouldn’t be doing the job. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[LeeF]

24 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Let’s put it this way. If he didn’t see it from where he was stood then he shouldn’t be doing the job. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

No. It is quite reasonable for someone to not see on 1 viewing at full speed from 1 angle what you think you saw after numerous  slow motion replays from numerous angles 

[Dunbar]

Forgive me if it has been mentioned already but an important part of this conversation regarding the Marshall lost ball and the try is this - would that have been a penalty if he hadn't lost control of the ball?

My feeling is that contact with head via hips, elbows, knees etc happen all the time on a rugby pitch and we cannot penalise them all otherwise there would never be a tackle.  It wasn't a piece of foul play and if he made contact with the head it was accidental.

So.  If he hadn't lost the ball it wouldn't have been a penalty and it shouldn't be because he lost the ball... you penalise the action, not the consequence. 

[Padge]

9 hours ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

If something happens that is considered to be foul play and the ref doesn’t see it then the touch judge should intervene. They are not just there to put their flag up when the ball goes into touch.

Yes we all know that, and if they don't see it?

By referee I mean all the on-field officials. Nobody except the video ref can overturn the refs decision and they can only do it on request from the man in the middle. A touch judge can only advise and not decide.

 

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Forgive me if it has been mentioned already but an important part of this conversation regarding the Marshall lost ball and the try is this - would that have been a penalty if he hadn't lost control of the ball?

My feeling is that contact with head via hips, elbows, knees etc happen all the time on a rugby pitch and we cannot penalise them all otherwise there would never be a tackle.  It wasn't a piece of foul play and if he made contact with the head it was accidental.

So.  If he hadn't lost the ball it wouldn't have been a penalty and it shouldn't be because he lost the ball... you penalise the action, not the consequence. 

Well according to one poster here, he didn't drop the ball. Charnley kicked his noggin in and then mugged him of the ball. 

[Leeds Wire]

17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Forgive me if it has been mentioned already but an important part of this conversation regarding the Marshall lost ball and the try is this - would that have been a penalty if he hadn't lost control of the ball?

My feeling is that contact with head via hips, elbows, knees etc happen all the time on a rugby pitch and we cannot penalise them all otherwise there would never be a tackle.  It wasn't a piece of foul play and if he made contact with the head it was accidental.

So.  If he hadn't lost the ball it wouldn't have been a penalty and it shouldn't be because he lost the ball... you penalise the action, not the consequence. 

One of the things that stands out for me on this 12 page thread is the misconception that any contact with the head, regardless of intent, is a penalty. 

That's just plain daft and there's nothing in the rules to support it.

Well done as always to the overwhelming majority of Wigan fans who are always fair and knowledgeable.

[yipyee]

9 hours ago, Cheshire Setter said:

It should if there is play continuing around the actual player concerned (players diving in to tackle etc), but in this case the ball carrier was already running 100m down the other end of the field. It had no bearing on Marshall's safety, and the medical staff were free to immediately come on to the field without interfering in play.

What about the late tackle at the start of the second half?

The ref blew before the ball landed even though as you state in the other instance the ball was down the other end of the field and the medical team wasnt impeded to see to Austin.

Its the inconsistency in reffing thats the issue.

Also the ref was taking Wigan back 11 to 12 metres each time for a spell when warrington were attacking but when warrington were pinned back on their own line it looked less than 10 he was taking them back.

 

[Leeds Wire]

7 minutes ago, yipyee said:

What about the late tackle at the start of the second half?

The ref blew before the ball landed even though as you state in the other instance the ball was down the other end of the field and the medical team wasnt impeded to see to Austin.

Its the inconsistency in reffing thats the issue.

Also the ref was taking Wigan back 11 to 12 metres each time for a spell when warrington were attacking but when warrington were pinned back on their own line it looked less than 10 he was taking them back.

 

Oh for goodness sake, have a word with yourself in the mirror. You and "my missus" are usually good posters so I don't understand why you've both had a conniption.

[my missus]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well according to one poster here, he didn't drop the ball. Charnley kicked his noggin in and then mugged him of the ball. 

aint that the truth, marshall took the ball clean and was waiting for the tackle charnley kicked him twice and mamo took the ball from his arms how can you not see that?

[ELBOWSEYE]

Maybe I need a to look at the screen in dark glasses and I will see what you say happened.

[LeeF]

13 minutes ago, yipyee said:

What about the late tackle at the start of the second half?

The ref blew before the ball landed even though as you state in the other instance the ball was down the other end of the field and the medical team wasnt impeded to see to Austin.

Its the inconsistency in reffing thats the issue.

Also the ref was taking Wigan back 11 to 12 metres each time for a spell when warrington were attacking but when warrington were pinned back on their own line it looked less than 10 he was taking them back.

 

The good old “he took us back further than he took them” makes a reappearance 

[dkw]

13 minutes ago, yipyee said:

What about the late tackle at the start of the second half?

The ref blew before the ball landed even though as you state in the other instance the ball was down the other end of the field and the medical team wasnt impeded to see to Austin.

Its the inconsistency in reffing thats the issue.

Also the ref was taking Wigan back 11 to 12 metres each time for a spell when warrington were attacking but when warrington were pinned back on their own line it looked less than 10 he was taking them back.

 

The ref said he blew before the ball landed as he didn't want a coming together of players when it did due to the nature of the "challenge" on the kicker.

As for the 2nd part of your post, don't be so ridiculous.