Jump to content

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


Who will win?  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Wigan Warriors
      29
    • Leeds Rhinos
      15

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 18/02/22 at 20:30

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I would say by using those definitions, it shouldn't have been allowed. 

But then, I'm not sure it was a knock on anyway.  So, should it have been a penalty to Leeds for an illegal kick!

 

I think it was a knock on, even though it ended up behind bibby it travelled forward.

What did the VR say (im glad sky now let us hear them) did he say it was a knock on but bibby ‘kicked it’?

 

Edited by Chrispmartha
Link to comment
Share on other sites


clutching-at-straws-1-2048x1726.jpg

  • Like 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think it was a knock on, even though it ended up behind bibby it travelled forward.

 

 

As I say, it may have travelled forward relative to the ground as Biddy was moving forward. But it hit his arm and was propelled backwards... otherwise it wouldn't have hit his heel.  Its all subjective but I didn't think it was a knock on

Having said that, I do recognise it would be given 100 times out of 100 in Rugby League as a knock on as we offer no mitigation for handling errors and give a kock on pretty much every time a ball hits the ground irrespective of whether the ball was knocked backwards or forwards.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As I say, it may have travelled forward relative to the ground as Biddy was moving forward. But it hit his arm and was propelled backwards... otherwise it wouldn't have hit his heel.  Its all subjective but I didn't think it was a knock on

Having said that, I do recognise it would be given 100 times out of 100 in Rugby League as a knock on as we offer no mitigation for handling errors and give a kock on pretty much every time a ball hits the ground irrespective of whether the ball was knocked backwards or forwards.

The mitigation is if the ball doesn't hit the ground (or other defined objects in the laws), which it didn't, so no knock on, whether it went backwards or forwards is irrelevant

Edited by Padge

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think it was a knock on, even though it ended up behind bibby it travelled forward.

What did the VR say (im glad sky now let us hear them) did he say it was a knock on but bibby ‘kicked it’?

 

Just watched it.  He says "it hits his arm so that's clear (as in clearly hits his arm) we now need to look if the ball hits the ground or his foot"

He would 100% have given it as a knock on if he hadn't said the kick mitigated it.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

The mitigation is if the ball doesn't hit the ground (or other defined objects in the laws), which it didn't, so no knock on, whether it went backwards of forwards is irrelevant

Well, the specific mitigation here is that he kicked it before it hit the ground.

But did he kick it?

Edited by Dunbar
  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

The mitigation is if the ball doesn't hit the ground (or other defined objects in the laws), which it didn't, so no knock on, whether it went backwards or forwards is irrelevant

Yes one of those defined objects is a kick, and by the definition of a kick he didn’t kick it.

 

you think its very clear but it’s not, which is why its been discussed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Well, the specific mitigation here is that he kicked it before it hit the ground.

But did he kick it?

He imparted motion on the ball (a pretty precise statement) that negates the knock on,, which is in the definition of a kick that bit isn't in question.

think of it as losing the ball forward but then regathering it, that would not be a knock on

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Yes one of those defined objects is a kick, and by the definition of a kick he didn’t kick it.

 

you think its very clear but it’s not, which is why its been discussed 

But you were arguing it was a knock, it wasn't a knock on, it didn't hit any object defined in a knock on as creating a knock on.

You are trying to role two laws into one.

Edited by Padge

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Padge said:

He imparted motion on the ball (a pretty precise statement) that negates the knock on,, which is in the definition of a kick that bit isn't in question.

Of course it is in question. 

The definition of a kick is imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive.

He hit it with his heel so by the definition, it clearly wasn't a kick.

You can't quote half of the definition and say it proves your point.

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

Of course it is in question. 

The definition of a kick is imparting motion to the ball with any part of the leg (except the heel) from the knee to toe inclusive.

He hit it with his heel so by the definition, it clearly wasn't a kick.

You can't quote half of the definition and say it proves your point.

Are you saying the ball didn't have motion imparted upon it?

I think you have missed my point way back.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that a couple of Wigan's tries should have been allowed that night, but that misses the point. Wigan were far and away better than Leeds and deserved to win comfortably.

There is a noticable difference compared to last season, but I do wonder if things may have worked out differently for Lam had he been able to select a fully fit Bevan French or Jai Field. The latter was fantastic last night, his speed off the mark is incredible. I don't think he can be dropped when French returns, so wonder if French may move to the wing, with Hardaker at centre.

There was still an element of sloppiness from Wigan with a few balls going into touch but last year they weren't even reaching that point, so a big improvement nevertheless.

Leeds did well for the first 20-25 minutes but were pretty dire for the rest of the match. Could easily go 0 from 3 with another tough match against Catalans last week. Saying that, when they get their players back and a kinder run of fixtures, things will almost certainly pick up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Padge said:

Are you saying the ball didn't have motion imparted upon it?

I think you have missed my point way back.

Yes, it had motion imparted on it, I am not questioning that.

Now my questions to you.

Did it hit his heel or not?

If the definition of a kick explicitly excludes the heel, was it a kick?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Padge said:

He imparted motion on the ball (a pretty precise statement) that negates the knock on,, which is in the definition of a kick that bit isn't in question.

think of it as losing the ball forward but then regathering it, that would not be a knock on

But you were arguing it was a knock, it wasn't a knock on, it didn't hit any object defined in a knock on as creating a knock on.

You are trying to role two laws into one.

Read the rule on a knock on and the mitigating factors, you can’t ignore the definition of a kick.

 

not so very clear is it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, it had motion imparted on it, I am not questioning that.

Now my questions to you.

Did it hit his heel or not?

If the definition of a kick explicitly excludes the heel, was it a kick?

It hit is heel, I have never said it didn't. To the definition of a kick it was not a kick, again I have never said it was.

Did the referee point to the ground and blow his whistle indicating a try?

 

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Padge said:

It hit is heel, I have never said it didn't. To the definition of a kick it was not a kick, again I have never said it was.

Did the referee point to the ground and blow his whistle indicating a try?

 

Padge your second point is just silly, it’s still a discussion point wether the try was given or not, unless you’re seriously saying we shouldn’t discuss any refereing/points on rules because the try was given.

But answer your point, he did but only after having his original decision overturned, but obviously the rule is very clear, despite the onfield referee the pundits and fans having different opinions in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Padge said:

It hit is heel, I have never said it didn't. To the definition of a kick it was not a kick, again I have never said it was.

Did the referee point to the ground and blow his whistle indicating a try?

 

Yes, he did.  Is that your point, we shouldn't discuss the nuances of the laws because the try was given?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, he did.  Is that your point, we shouldn't discuss the nuances of the laws because the try was given?

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.

 

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute 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.

 

If you don't want to discuss it then fine.  Personally, I think it is an interesting discussion. 

And none of this (from me anyway) is being critical of the officials.  I haven't even come close to working out what I would have given as a decision after watching 20 replays and reading the laws 10 times.

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes 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.

 

Which is a strawman because absolutely no one is doing that.

not the leeds fans nor the Leeds coach who specifically said it was the leeds players fault.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

So the very second the ref points for a try it's no longer open to discussion, did you really just write that on a forum ha ha, what a ridiculous opinion. 

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.

Edited by Padge

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.