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

[Chrispmartha]

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’?

 

[Padge]

[Dunbar]

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.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

10 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

You may get to find out as they use the GPS to measure player speed, I understand Field clocked a top speed of 36.7 mph against HKR last week and was the fastest in SL round 1.

I think you must have been watching the racing channel, Usain Bolt cannot break 28mph.

[Live after death]

18 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

Got to be a Yorkshire-specific event, surely?

Be a good shin kicker as well

[Padge]

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

[Dunbar]

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.

[Dunbar]

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?

[Chrispmartha]

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 

[Padge]

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.

[Dunbar]

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.

[Padge]

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.

[Chris22]

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.

[meast]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Sezer won a GF with canberra in 2019 and was a MOS contender in 2020 and missed a lot of 2021 with injury, think theres a bit of revisionism going on !

He’ll come good

He wasn't injured, he just couldn't be arsed so Watto cut him out of the squad.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, meast said:

He wasn't injured, he just couldn't be arsed so Watto cut him out of the squad.

Regardless the claim was he hasn’t played well for a couple of years, which is incorrect 

[Dunbar]

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?

[Chrispmartha]

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.

[Padge]

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?

 

[Chrispmartha]

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.

[Dunbar]

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?

[Padge]

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.

 

[dkw]

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. 

[Dunbar]

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.

[Chrispmartha]

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.

[Padge]

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.