Fri 18th Feb: SL: Wigan Warriors v Leeds Rhinos KO 20:00 (Sky)

[dkw]

Just now, Padge said:

I didn't say it wasn't open for discussion, I said it is a try and arguing it isn't a try is stupid.

Stop it you obfuscating old sod.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Padge said:

I didn't say it wasn't open for discussion, I said it is a try and arguing it isn't a try is stupid.

You said ‘why are you discussing it?’

you also stated the rules were ‘very clear’

its precisely because they aren’t very clear its been discussed. 

[EagleEyePie]

The reason there's no debate on whether the Bibby try should have stood is because, regardless of whether the kick was deliberate or whether a kick with a heel really counts as a kick, the ball quite clearly hits the back of his upper arm while the arm is moving backwards, and the ball is knocked backwards rather than forwards, so it's clearly not a knock on by any definition of the knock on rule. 

[dkw]

1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

The reason there's no debate on whether the Bibby try should have stood is because, regardless of whether the kick was deliberate or whether a kick with a heel really counts as a kick, the ball quite clearly hits the back of his upper arm while the arm is moving backwards, and the ball is knocked backwards rather than forwards, so it's clearly not a knock on by any definition of the knock on rule. 

Well it's clearly not that clear as clearly the VR was giving it as a clear knock on if it didn't hit his foot clearly.

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

You said ‘why are you discussing it?’

you also stated the rules were ‘very clear’

its precisely because they aren’t very clear its been discussed. 

I am not discussing if it was a try or not.

I am discussing you incorrect statement that it was a knock on, pointing out a kick is very clearly defined, which for some reason a clear definition confuses you, and pointing out that the kick argument is irrelevant since if the Leeds players had played to the whistle there is every chance Field wouldn't have been given a walk in.

The ref is yet again being used as a convenient bogey man.

 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

The reason there's no debate on whether the Bibby try should have stood is because, regardless of whether the kick was deliberate or whether a kick with a heel really counts as a kick, the ball quite clearly hits the back of his upper arm while the arm is moving backwards, and the ball is knocked backwards rather than forwards, so it's clearly not a knock on by any definition of the knock on rule. 

If that ball had not hit bibbys heal do you think the ref would have said play on?

 

id say its far from clear, but TBH that isn’t the interesting discussion point, (neither is the fact it was a try) it’s more a discussion around an ambiguous rule in the game.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

The reason there's no debate on whether the Bibby try should have stood is because, regardless of whether the kick was deliberate or whether a kick with a heel really counts as a kick, the ball quite clearly hits the back of his upper arm while the arm is moving backwards, and the ball is knocked backwards rather than forwards, so it's clearly not a knock on by any definition of the knock on rule. 

This is the point I made earlier.

I don't think it was a knock on.  But if it wasn't and the 'kick' was not a legal kick, what should the decision have been?

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Padge said:

I am not discussing if it was a try or not.

I am discussing you incorrect statement that it was a knock on, pointing out a kick is very clearly defined, which for some reason a clear definition confuses you, and pointing out that the kick argument is irrelevant since if the Leeds players had played to the whistle there is every chance Field wouldn't have been given a walk in.

The ref is yet again being used as a convenient bogey man.

 

Ffs padge, no one absolutely no one is using the ref as a bogeyman, you’re making that up.

ive stated more than once the Leeds players  were at fault regardless of the rule.

you say its incorrect that it was s knock on, well it seems the onfield ref, and the VR think it was but it was nullified by the kick that wasn’t a kick.

 

Just for clarity so you’re not confused, i am 100% saying the Leeds players should have dealt with it regardless of what went before it.

[EagleEyePie]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

If that ball had not hit bibbys heal do you think the ref would have said play on?

 

id say its far from clear, but TBH that isn’t the interesting discussion point, (neither is the fact it was a try) it’s more a discussion around an ambiguous rule in the game.

Nope, the fact the ref gave a knock on even though it did hit the heel suggests he thought it went forwards, but refs make mistakes and those calls are incredibly close.

And it's not like those calls always get given a knock on. I've seen loads of cases of a pass hitting a player or being knocked by a player and they go either way. It just depends on how the ref has seen it.

On this occasion it seems like the video ref correctly awarded the try for the wrong reasons.

[EagleEyePie]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is the point I made earlier.

I don't think it was a knock on.  But if it wasn't and the 'kick' was not a legal kick, what should the decision have been?

It wasn't deliberately kicked with the heel, so presumably it's allowed, similar to an accidental head of the ball. It's hard to know exactly why the definition of kick doesn't include the heel as I can't think of any valid reason for it. I'm sure I've seen a player back heel the ball over their head in the build up to a try and it was given though.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

It wasn't deliberately kicked with the heel, so presumably it's allowed, similar to an accidental head of the ball. It's hard to know exactly why the definition of kick doesn't include the heel as I can't think of any valid reason for it. I'm sure I've seen a player back heel the ball over their head in the build up to a try and it was given though.

The rule doesn’t mention deliberately or not, unlike the head rule, that’s why its unclear.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

It wasn't deliberately kicked with the heel, so presumably it's allowed, similar to an accidental head of the ball. It's hard to know exactly why the definition of kick doesn't include the heel as I can't think of any valid reason for it. I'm sure I've seen a player back heel the ball over their head in the build up to a try and it was given though.

Yes, there is real ambiguity about this part. If the definition explicitly states the use of the heel is not a kick then that has to be considered.  Does it matter of it is accidental or deliberate? The laws don't mention this.  I guess you just have to give the ref the leeway to make a common sense call.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

Just catching up on the thread. Leeds were statistically the better team in the first half but the score board said differently which is the bit that matters.

Leeds were terrible in the second half rather than Wigan being some sort of well oiled machine. The pie fans that are purring are probably a little premature in their assessment but they were worthy winners.

Obviously momentum is a big thing in RL and even with my biased hat on (or so I will be accused) I do not think some more poor decisions changed the result.

For me the Austin try was simple but great, he suckered in the best second rower in the comp. Fast forward and his ill-discipline needlessly gifted a penalty on the 3rd tackle which led to Field waltzing in between two forwards right before half time. I think this was the catalyst for Wigan going in at half time in the way they did.

I will wade in on the Wigan first try; Thaler stated "because the ball is then kicked" (when checking for a knock on) but as has been pointed out the rules specifically preclude kicks from the heel.

So Thaler is wrong in his assessment but what should he have done?

It must be a knock on. Bibby loses control off his arm and must regain control before the ball touches the ground (goalpost/crossbar/opponent). He doesn't. It is that simple.

Posters referring to intention or lack of - this is only relevant in determining how play should restart. Deliberate or accidental knock on etc. However he loses control having struck his arm so it should be accidental.

School boy stuff from Leeds though not playing to the whistle but it is laughable to think it is anything other than a knock on.

Wigan's third try could easily have been given as a knock on too, in fact it probably was. That said, at home, with it going up as a try, roles reversed I would not be happy to see it turned over. Hopefully calls like these are the ones that even themselves out. It does start to feel we have a few in the 'owed' column though.

Wigan's fifth try is also questionable; The definition of misconduct

(c) drops knees first on to an opponent who is on the ground

Tackling knees first it outlawed for obvious reasons. Powell lands knee first onto the forearm of Walker. Walker is on the ground as is the arm that Powell lands on with all his weight. If Walker rolled around like a footballer clutching his arm Powell would get red (not that I condone this but you see players milking). Regardless it is illegal to tackle 'knees first' which is exactly what he did and was rewarded with a try!

Playing devils advocate, I think Leeds were lucky not to be penalised more in the ruck when slowing Wigan down. Wigan, especially in the second half really played like a team that were hungry and with their tails up working hard for each other and as I have already said even without getting the rub they would have won.

[Davo5]

7 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Sezer won a GF with canberra in 2019 

No he didn’t 

[Futtocks]

This song is dedicated to... you know who you are.

 

[Chrispmartha]

19 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

No he didn’t 

Sorry my bad, meant to say was in a GF with canberra.

[redjonn]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

You may have a case for offside but it was a loose carry all day long. 

nope, it should have been a penalty to Leeds imho. It didn't matter as Leeds were very poor from 20mins onwards.    I've seen Myler sent off for sliding in on a wet surface with his knee's... so I was surprised it was given.  A bit like the back heel which should have led to the try being scrubbed off.

Again non of it mattered but another match they may have.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

nope, it should have been a penalty to Leeds imho. It didn't matter as Leeds were very poor from 20mins onwards.    I've seen Myler sent off for sliding in on a wet surface with his knee's... so I was surprised it was given.  A bit like the back heel which should have led to the try being scrubbed off.

Again non of it mattered but another match they may have.

If that happens anywhere else on the pitch a knock on is given without complaint. People now want different standards simply because Walker's mess up cost a try due to him losing the ball with a loose carry by diving into Powell. As is the referee and video referee got the call quite correct.

[redjonn]

4 hours ago, Padge said:

My point is that once the ref gives a try its a try end of. The heel argument is neither here nor there when the real blame for the try was the Leeds players not playing to the whistle, they decided to stop and give Field an open field to score.

One very subtle indiscretion from an official shouldn't be used to mask the utter stupidity of the Leeds players.

 

don't think anyone is suggesting that the Leeds players were not at fault for not playing to the whistle.

The play highlighted a ruling that should have been applied which wasn't and for which I think many were not aware of.  It is an interesting point irrespective of anything else.

Daryl Powel according to Sky called it immediate saying it should have not been given because of the heel... I was mildly surprised that he would would know such a vague rule. I don't think many coaches would have known it.

 

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

If that happens anywhere else on the pitch a knock on is given without complaint. People now want different standards simply because Walker's mess up cost a try due to him losing the ball with a loose carry by diving into Powell. As is the referee and video referee got the call quite correct.

Powell led with his knees Damien - it is outlawed.

He literally knocked the ball out with his knee having landed directly on Walkers arm. Malicious, no, but leading with the knees regardless.

The rules precisely prohibit it.

(c) drops knees first on to an opponent who is on the ground

Unless my eyes are playing tricks it is knees first....

If you disagree - please explain how this rule does not apply?

 

[redjonn]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

If that happens anywhere else on the pitch a knock on is given without complaint. People now want different standards simply because Walker's mess up cost a try due to him losing the ball with a loose carry by diving into Powell. As is the referee and video referee got the call quite correct.

as I say I seen players penalised for sliding in with the knee on a wet pitch - in fact I think Myler was sin-binned for dangerous play because he slid in with his knee's - all be it was when a player was scoring a try and he was trying to stop it..

[Damien]

1 minute ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Powell led with his knees Damien - it is outlawed.

He literally knocked the ball out with his knee having landed directly on Walkers arm. Malicious, no, but leading with the knees regardless.

The rules precisely prohibit it.

(c) drops knees first on to an opponent who is on the ground

Unless my eyes are playing tricks it is knees first....

If you disagree - please explain how this rule does not apply?

 

Yes because one selective still proves anything. This is from a millisecond before your still, please tell me how a player sprinting at speed is meant to do anything but bend his right knee in his next movement. He cant, it is impossible. Walker doesn't dive that doesn't happen. He did and lost the ball, maybe he wont go to ground the next time:

 

[Exiled Wiganer]

This could run and run - by my reckoning we are down to 2 Wigan tries that Leeds fans and “neutrals” haven’t chalked off. Given that we have had nearly 20 hours (!!!) to work on this why oh why are those last 2 not being chalked off.
 

I know it’s early season but the Leeds fans in years gone by - where is m j m when you need him? - would have produced signed affidavits from the referee and Wigan coach looking to reverse the result by now. 

[Dunbar]

The Powell try should not have been given.  Not because of the tackle/grounding but as @Jill Halfpenny fansaid earlier in the thread, Powell was ahead of Cust at the kick and Cust never got ahead of him in the chase and so Powell was inside the 10 when Walker touched the ball and should have been penalised.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yes because one selective still proves anything. This is from a millisecond before your still, please tell me how a player sprinting at speed is meant to do anything but bend his right knee in his next movement. He cant, it is impossible. Walker doesn't dive that doesn't happen. He did and lost the ball, maybe he wont go to ground the next time:

 

It proves everything Damien, my image shows the moment of first impact. It was with a knee landing on the arm of a player on the floor. The knee then dislodges the ball. You can talk until the cows comes home but you cannot rewrite history.

Your pic does not depict the tackle does it, Powell has not even arrived yet.

Your argument which basically amounts to 'what did you expect Powell to do' can only be used as mitigation against the severity of the punishment and not to vindicate an illegal tackle. He chose to tackle and ran the risk of it going wrong. Just like Currie did last week, just like Prior did last week - no malice, no intent but all of them fouls.

You have to penalise what actually happened and not some hypothetical scenario blaming Walker for going to ground. It is like blaming the wife for her black eye because dinner was on the plate late!

It was Powell's choice to try an effect the tackle and in doing so he led with his knees. First contact was made by the knees and the rules explicitly prohibit this.

As I have said, it is irrespective to the outcome in the end but just another inconsistency by the video referee. As sure as death and taxes they (officials) will be penalising them this season just like they have done so in previous seasons.