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

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

19 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

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. 

[Damien]

Did Leeds fans have extra moaning lessons in the off season? The amount of moaning this week and last has been ridiculous. Obviously Hetherington setting such a poor example doesn't help things.

The simple fact is the referees and video referees, have seen the key decisions in 2 games completely differently, as have many neutrals, to the Leeds fans on this board.

[Dave T]

5 hours 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.

I have to agree. As much as I'd like to side with the Leeds fans on this, I see no foul play from Powell. It's a Rugby collision.

[WN83]

6 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

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. 

I’m not sure we’ve scored a legal try yet this season tbh but we thank our lucky stars the refs are so lenient (I know we’ve been battered 16-8 on the penalty counts but that’s no defence) and move on. 

[The Future is League]

I got the impression from Richard Agars post match interview that there are some unhappy players in the Leeds camp due to lack of playing time, but them players have to realise that it's a long season and they will get their opportunities and when they come they will have to take them

[Davo5]

12 hours ago, Damien said:

Did Leeds fans have extra moaning lessons in the off season? The amount of moaning this week and last has been ridiculous. Obviously Hetherington setting such a poor example doesn't help things.

The simple fact is the referees, and indeed also the video referees, have seen the key decisions in 2 games completely differently to the Leeds fans on this board and many neutrals.

I thought last weeks Warrington match thread was a whingefest of epic proportion’s but this one is giving it a run for its money,must be incredibly difficult seeing you “legendary” team stutter to a 0-2 start to the season though.

The one plus point is Sir Kev is spending more time in hiding than posting on here & im away in Spain so hopefully this thread will have petered out by the time I get back next week.

[JohnM]

14 hours ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

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.

Let me help here. One frame grab does not prove anything, as you rightly point out when you wrote "Your pic does not depict the tackle does it, Powell has not even arrived yet."

Its a fact beyond dispute and applied as much to Wiganphobes as anyone.

[David Dockhouse Host]

Just watching Hold Coast v Brisbane.

Gold coast player drops ball onto his shin and it goes forward.....someone else grounds the ball, result.....try

 

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

27 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Just watching Hold Coast v Brisbane.

Gold coast player drops ball onto his shin and it goes forward.....someone else grounds the ball, result.....try

 

And your point is? The rule is quoted as: 

"Kick means imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive."

[David Dockhouse Host]

36 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

And your point is? The rule is quoted as: 

"Kick means imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive."

My point is......supporting the decision of the ref in the Wigan game when awarding a try when people felt it shouldn't have been awarded and isn't elsewhere. The very same weekend across the other side of the world a similar incident leads to the same correct result.

 

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Let me help here. One frame grab does not prove anything, as you rightly point out when you wrote "Your pic does not depict the tackle does it, Powell has not even arrived yet."

Its a fact beyond dispute and applied as much to Wiganphobes as anyone.

The forum only permits exceptionally small files sizes and so posting relevant video is not possible.

My picture showed the moment of impact, like it or not. It was knees first with Powell landing on Walkers arm.

If you consider for a second why leading with the knees is specifically outlawed. The rule states:

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

I do not know how much Powell weighs but lets say roughly 16st. More than half his weight would have been applied to the first knee that landed, which was the knee landing directly on Walkers arm. Obviously we have some element of error here but it would be in the region of 10/11 stone at say 20 mph?

Walkers arm was laid flat on the grass and couldn't go down and therefore it absorbed the entire force of the impact.

Do you remember Flower punching Hohiah the second time when he was on the ground. Hohiah head moved only slightly to the side as it has no where to go. Imagine taking the same punch if they were stood up. It would have taken him off his feet.

Just because you see nothing much in it, a knee landing directly onto a part of the body with so much weight and momentum is highly dangerous. In this case it could have snapped Walkers arm.

Answer honestly; if it had of snapped his arm would you still be suggesting it was a legal tackle and deserving of a try?

If you think I am wrong tell me why. Explain how he did not lead with his knees and make direct contact with Walker.

I just dont understand why some folk pass contradicting opinions with a foundation of their argument being 'you are wrong because, you know, erm you just are'.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

1 minute ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

My point is......supporting the decision of the ref in the Wigan game when awarding a try when people felt it shouldn't have been awarded and isn't elsewhere. The very same weekend across the other side of the world a similar incident leads to the same correct result.

 

Dave the Wigan player used his heel to 'kick' the ball which is specifically outlawed and therefore the rules do not consider what he did as a legitimate action. I have read on here that even Sky picked this up in their broadcast?

In your point you state the kick originated off the shin, which is perfectly legal.

The rule states: -

"Kick means imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive."

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 minute ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Dave the Wigan player used his heel to 'kick' the ball which is specifically outlawed and therefore the rules do not consider what he did as a legitimate action. I have read on here that even Sky picked this up in their broadcast?

In your point you state the kick originated off the shin, which is perfectly legal.

The rule states: -

"Kick means imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive."

Fair enough, I was just refering to the kick being from the foot, if it was from the heel I agree with you. I suspect this was missed or an error on the video refs call

[Davo5]

[Futtocks]

The actual end of this match was eight pages ago.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

The forum only permits exceptionally small files sizes and so posting relevant video is not possible.

My picture showed the moment of impact, like it or not. It was knees first with Powell landing on Walkers arm.

If you consider for a second why leading with the knees is specifically outlawed. The rule states:

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

I do not know how much Powell weighs but lets say roughly 16st. More than half his weight would have been applied to the first knee that landed, which was the knee landing directly on Walkers arm. Obviously we have some element of error here but it would be in the region of 10/11 stone at say 20 mph?

Walkers arm was laid flat on the grass and couldn't go down and therefore it absorbed the entire force of the impact.

Do you remember Flower punching Hohiah the second time when he was on the ground. Hohiah head moved only slightly to the side as it has no where to go. Imagine taking the same punch if they were stood up. It would have taken him off his feet.

Just because you see nothing much in it, a knee landing directly onto a part of the body with so much weight and momentum is highly dangerous. In this case it could have snapped Walkers arm.

Answer honestly; if it had of snapped his arm would you still be suggesting it was a legal tackle and deserving of a try?

If you think I am wrong tell me why. Explain how he did not lead with his knees and make direct contact with Walker.

I just dont understand why some folk pass contradicting opinions with a foundation of their argument being 'you are wrong because, you know, erm you just are'.

No need to explain. Although I respect the effort you have put in to become a qualified referee, I have to say, I've not seen you in action at a single Super League game. You can come up with all the exudes you like, the opinion and actions of the match official trump those of an anti-Wigan bigot.

 

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

My point is......supporting the decision of the ref in the Wigan game when awarding a try when people felt it shouldn't have been awarded and isn't elsewhere. The very same weekend across the other side of the world a similar incident leads to the same correct result.

 

but their was a difference, a very key difference ... one was the shin, one was the heel.  One is not allowed, one is...

If you can't see that then their is no point discussing it more.

sorry

[redjonn]

35 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

The actual end of this match was eight pages ago.

chuckle, your right but it has shown some interest otherwise it wouldn't have gone on for so long. Especial the heel discussion.

Its a substitute for the pub or at work discussion for some of us, don't knock it otherwise we wouldn't bother coming on here.

[Dunbar]

I've asked this question a couple of times but not explicitly outside of the Wigan incident.

I agree that in the definition of a kick the heel is specifically excluded from the definition. 

But it is in the definition section, not in the actual main section of the laws themselves. 

So, my question is. If a player deliberately kicks the ball with his heel, what should the decision be?

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I've asked this question a couple of times but not explicitly outside of the Wigan incident.

I agree that in the definition of a kick the heel is specifically excluded from the definition. 

But it is in the definition section, not in the actual main section of the laws themselves. 

So, my question is. If a player deliberately kicks the ball with his heel, what should the decision be?

I would have thought kicking the ball isn’t ‘illegal’ as such but in an instance such as the one in the wigan game a kick with the heel cannot override a knock on as the knock on rule is explicit that a ‘kick’ can but the use of the heel isn’t a kick.

therefore if a player intentionally dropped  the ball forward and ‘kicked’ it (like you would a grubber kick for example) but used the heel the correct ruling would be a knock on.

 

[Jim Prendle]

3 hours ago, Futtocks said:

The actual end of this match was eight pages ago.

True. I’ve just checked on the BBC website and the score is still the same though.

I think some people need to let this go and get on with supporting their team in the quest to become legendary.

[Chrispmartha]

19 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

True. I’ve just checked on the BBC website and the score is still the same though.

 

Just like padge’s take, this is just daft.

Are you saying incidents in games shouldn’t  be discussed because ultimately the score won’t change? If so this forum would be pretty redundant.

Also you won’t find any Leeds fan that thinks Fridays result was decided on the refs calls.

[Jim Prendle]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Just like padge’s take, this is just daft.

Are you saying incidents in games shouldn’t  be discussed because ultimately the score won’t change? If so this forum would be pretty redundant.

Also you won’t find any Leeds fan that thinks Fridays result was decided on the refs calls.

There is a difference between discussion and obsession, you just don't seem to know what it is.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Jim Prendle said:

There is a difference between discussion and obsession, you just don't seem to know what it is.

Then ignore it if you’re not interested.

[Dunbar]

Thinking about it, the heel part of the definition of a kick is probably just a legacy from the scrum and play the ball.

For both the scrum and the play the ball, both teams were allowed to heel the ball back - the hooker in the scrum and the tackled player and the marker at the play the ball.  Of course the latter has been outlawed now and while a hooker can still in theory hook a ball at the scrum we know where we are with that now.

So, at each contest for possession (the scrum and the 'mini scrum' of the play the ball) the heel is used to secure possession and so the heel is not used for a kick that imparts forward motion.

Seeing as though we ignore both sections of the laws for the scrum and play the ball, we are probably best off just ignoring the heel part of the kick definition as well.  After all, what's one more part of the laws to ignore between friends when we already ignore so many.