Thur 2nd Mar: SL: Warrington Wolves v Salford Red Devils KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Niels]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yep. The only reason for it being called offside is because some people want it to be offside. 

As a neutral who had no bias he was clearly offside. You could see from the replay behind the goal, he appeared later in the shot miles in front of everyone else.

The touch judge obviously had a feeling there was an offside as he checked it but unfortunately he checked the wrong player!

When he said they were all onside, the try scorer hadn't entered the picture yet. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've been thinking about this one, and I'm not sure what the genuine alternative is here. 

For anyone saying there should be no punishment, we are basically arguing that we should legalise foul play. I have seen it presented by various people that it was accidental, but my understanding is that it is still foul play, and a penalty. Of course accidental may be treated less severely, i.e just a penalty instead of yellow or red, but I don't think there is anywhere to go below the minimum of a penalty.

Ultimately Watkins' tackle was directly to Dufty's jaw - and I'm not sure how that can be re-classified to be deemed as play on.

I think there's discussion because its rare, and there was two in one game.

If there's a crackdown on it, fair enough as long as we see it implemented consistently. I don't like the players diving in with their knees and it happens all the time without being penalised, so no problem from me if it starts to get picked up

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

to be fair that isnt what the VR is there for necessarily. Its why there is an on field call, if there is sufficient evidence to overturn the decision then they can but otherwise they refer to the officials who are watching live.. it was ever thus.

It is hard to see on the camera angles etc but that is the rule and is the same rule for ALL teams when VR is used. The Ref gives his initial thoughts (ie if there was no VR what would he call) and it is up to the VR, on instruction of what to look for, to see if there is a reason to overturn that call. If not then the onfield decision stands. That will be the same at every game with a VR. 

Yes know that RP, it was that Dave said there was no evidence to say the on field officials were wrong, I was just saying that with the camera angles it was as not conclusive that they were right in awarding it.

If like in As we had the captains call it may be better.

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Niels said:

As a neutral who had no bias he was clearly offside. You could see from the replay behind the goal, he appeared later in the shot miles in front of everyone else.

The touch judge obviously had a feeling there was an offside as he checked it but unfortunately he checked the wrong player!

When he said they were all onside, the try scorer hadn't entered the picture yet. 

 

Nope. If he wasn't in the shot, you can't say he was offside. You literally have no evidence. When he appeared, was he running by any chance?

And the touch judge didn't have a feeling - have you actually watched it Neils? They went to the VR purely for the foul play, and the VR went back to the kick as process dictates.

But tbh, read back what you are saying - the try scorer is not on screen when the ball is kicked - yet you claim he was clearly offside. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes know that RP, it was that Dave said there was no evidence to say the on field officials were wrong, I was just saying that with the camera angles it was as not conclusive that they were right in awarding it.

If like in As we had the captains call it may be better.

No. That isn't how the VR works. 

They will only overrule a referee with evidence. Not just made up claims.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think there's discussion because its rare, and there was two in one game.

If there's a crackdown on it, fair enough as long as we see it implemented consistently. I don't like the players diving in with their knees and it happens all the time without being penalised, so no problem from me if it starts to get picked up

I think we need to be careful on this one. The actual incidents are rare. People may want to make out these go unpunished all the time, but it isn't true.

The knees thing is a bugbear of mine, but usually they are part of a try-saving tackle attempt, but the difference with Dupree's was that he was very late. Not too many disagree with that one.

The second one is the interesting one - but we really don't see direct contact with the head too often as a player scores a try. I'm not sure what the alternative can be.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think we need to be careful on this one. The actual incidents are rare. People may want to make out these go unpunished all the time, but it isn't true.

The knees thing is a bugbear of mine, but usually they are part of a try-saving tackle attempt, but the difference with Dupree's was that he was very late. Not too many disagree with that one.

The second one is the interesting one - but we really don't see direct contact with the head too often as a player scores a try. I'm not sure what the alternative can be.

Even if they are part of a try saving tackle its still foul play, which is the same as you say for the Watkins one.

Put it this way Dave, if neither have those yesterday had have been given 8 point trys I doubt anyone would have been calling for them, as I say Ive no issue with clamping down on these, but as always with these things people will see it as a president that has been set, there will be calls for 8 point trys now going forward.

[Barry Badrinath]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Even if they are part of a try saving tackle its still foul play, which is the same as you say for the Watkins one.

Put it this way Dave, if neither have those yesterday had have been given 8 point trys I doubt anyone would have been calling for them, as I say Ive no issue with clamping down on these, but as always with these things people will see it as a president that has been set, there will be calls for 8 point trys now going forward.

thats not true, i can guarentee us wire fans would be, especially on the knee slide, cos thats happened to us before.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Even if they are part of a try saving tackle its still foul play, which is the same as you say for the Watkins one.

Put it this way Dave, if neither have those yesterday had have been given 8 point trys I doubt anyone would have been calling for them, as I say Ive no issue with clamping down on these, but as always with these things people will see it as a president that has been set, there will be calls for 8 point trys now going forward.

I completely disagree. People wouldn't have ignored a late challenge on a prone player and a smack in the chops. They would have been shown in slow-mo and they'd have been discussed. 

These things don't happen in games regularly. It's not that they are routinely ignored. 

[Niels]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Nope. If he wasn't in the shot, you can't say he was offside. You literally have no evidence. When he appeared, was he running by any chance?

And the touch judge didn't have a feeling - have you actually watched it Neils? They went to the VR purely for the foul play, and the VR went back to the kick as process dictates.

But tbh, read back what you are saying - the try scorer is not on screen when the ball is kicked - yet you claim he was clearly offside. 

I don't think people are making anything up, it just seemed improbable that the winger could have been so fast as to make up that ground and be so far ahead of his centre and the defence. Sometimes Chris Kendall calls offside on the grounds the player couldn't possibly be so far ahead. 

It's possible to admire George Williams and Warrington yet still think it was offside. 

The first 15 minutes they were unplayable and had a great intensity. I never thought the game was over.

 

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Niels said:

I don't think people are making anything up, it just seemed improbable that the winger could have been so fast as to make up that ground and be so far ahead of his centre and the defence. Sometimes Chris Kendall calls offside on the grounds the player couldn't possibly be so far ahead. 

It's possible to admire George Williams and Warrington yet still think it was offside. 

The first 15 minutes they were unplayable and had a great intensity. I never thought the game was over.

 

It’s far from improbable that the winger could be onside. It’s highly likely that he was onside due to the type of kick, the distance etc. 

The person in the very best position to call it was the TJ who clearly states onside. Anything else is either pure speculation or stirring

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Niels said:

I don't think people are making anything up, it just seemed improbable that the winger could have been so fast as to make up that ground and be so far ahead of his centre and the defence. Sometimes Chris Kendall calls offside on the grounds the player couldn't possibly be so far ahead. 

It's possible to admire George Williams and Warrington yet still think it was offside. 

The first 15 minutes they were unplayable and had a great intensity. I never thought the game was over.

 

The line in bold is one of the weirdest things I've read here, with respect

Is this the reverse angle that has convinced you he was offside? 

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The line in bold is one of the weirdest things I've read here, with respect

Is this the reverse angle that has convinced you he was offside? 

Its getting a bit like the flat earth society. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

9 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

thats not true, i can guarentee us wire fans would be, especially on the knee slide, cos thats happened to us before.

I remember at the DW when liam farrell slid into Ratchford after scoring, a 8 point try was awarded. It does happen the times when players slid in feet first to dislodge the ball whilst the player was touching down was previously common but has been outlawed, the slide as with Dupree has always been outlawed witj a chance of an 8 point try being awarded. 

[JimBronco]

Really enjoyed this game last night. A game of two halves. At half-time I couldn't see Warrington getting back into it as Salford were just breaking the line, tackles and making metres for fun. Salford couldn't find a way past the Wolves' defense in the 2nd half. A bit of a statement win for Warrington I feel. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I remember at the DW when liam farrell slid into Ratchford after scoring, a 8 point try was awarded. It does happen the times when players slid in feet first to dislodge the ball whilst the player was touching down was previously common but has been outlawed, the slide as with Dupree has always been outlawed witj a chance of an 8 point try being awarded. 

This one saw the defender with a clenched fist instead of flat palm, but both direct contact with the head as the player scores. 

Note: flat palm doesn't make contact with the head legal. 

[SalfordSlim]

4 minutes ago, JimBronco said:

Really enjoyed this game last night. A game of two halves. At half-time I couldn't see Warrington getting back into it as Salford were just breaking the line, tackles and making metres for fun. Salford couldn't find a way past the Wolves' defense in the 2nd half. A bit of a statement win for Warrington I feel. 

Erm that'll be because Salford barely had the ball 2nd half and when they did they made stupid decisions (throwing the ball into touch on 1st tackle/going for the 2 when a repeat set 10 metres out was the better option).

[SalfordSlim]

I'll watch the game back when it's replayed on RDTV. Would be good to watch stuff again with replays etc as you often don't get the best view being at the game.

Pretty sure I still won't be changing my opinion on some of the decisions.

[The Phantom Horseman]

An 8-point try was awarded in the Championship play-off semi final last year when Dane Manning launched himself knees first at Josh Hardcastle, I didn't think it was a "dirty" play, just a desperate attempt to stop him scoring, but was probably the right call.

In every game there are calls that could have gone either way without them necessarily being "bad" calls, that's just the nature of officiating such a fast-moving sport. I thought most of the calls in the Warrington-Salford game were ok as a neutral, I wasn't convinced that incident that led to the long-distance effort from Dufty in the second half was a knock on on one viewing but I'm not sure the ref could wait to see if he went the length of the field before using the video ref, if he thinks it's a knock on he can't then go to the screen if Dufty gets tackled 20m out and that's a massive turnaround in game position so he had to make the call as he saw it.

The sin binning was one of those where if Brierley lets go half a second earlier it's definitely not a sin bin but if he holds on for an extra half second it  definitely is ie it's in that grey area. To be fair the ref's mike wasn't the clearest for that incident but if Brierley made a clear extra movement after the call to release, and I think he probably did, then it's hard to argue with the decision for me.

As for the two 8-point tries, if either one had happened in isolation I don't think there would have been such a big debate, it's just that two happened not just in the same game but within a few minutes. Again I find it hard to disagree with either decision based on the laws and their current interpretation.

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I've been thinking about this one, and I'm not sure what the genuine alternative is here. 

For anyone saying there should be no punishment, we are basically arguing that we should legalise foul play. I have seen it presented by various people that it was accidental, but my understanding is that it is still foul play, and a penalty. Of course accidental may be treated less severely, i.e just a penalty instead of yellow or red, but I don't think there is anywhere to go below the minimum of a penalty.

Ultimately Watkins' tackle was directly to Dufty's jaw - and I'm not sure how that can be re-classified to be deemed as play on.

Yeah I get that, it is a penalty worthy offence, it kind of fits into the same category as players being allowed much more leniency when trying to stop a try, its been an unwritten rule in the past. Things like going in feet first, punching at the ball (and hitting the man) etc were accepted as "part of the game". 

[LeeF]

In an alternative world….

Jack Smith blows his whistle, makes the square in the air and speaks.

”Liam, wake up Liam. I’ve got something for you”

Liam Moore for it is he says ”Sorry Jack. I was just catching up with some stuff on my planner. What you got for me ?”

JS: ”Possible 8 pointer. Touchie is ok with onside/ offside. Can you check for knees in the tackle”.

LM: “Let’s get me best angle. Where’s me remote? Right got it. Ooo that winger is rapid. Was he too quick for Chris?”

JS: “How’s it going mate  you got owt yet”

LM: “ Yep. No. Sky are useless they’ve no angle but he was too quick so must have been offside after all Chris is always right according to Ganson”

JS: “Are you sure? Ganson’s gone. What about the foul play”

LM: “Has he gone? I thought he was still going to Red Hall! Just looking at the foul play now. Nowt to it. He doesn’t kill him and Tez says he’s not that type of player so no foul. Let’s bring back the biff”.

JS: “Are you sure? If I get this wrong it’s Workington for me next week. Or even worse that Jaguar place”.

LM: “Yeh I’m sure. Also get that fullback back from the sin bin. A bit of a harsh decision according to Twitter and that Totalrl forum thingy plus that Paul Rowley bloke is a nice guy plays decent rugby and never has a go at us apparently. Yes get him back on”

JS: “So no try. No foul play. No sin bin?”

LM: “ Yes that’s it. I’ve got to go. The doorbell has just rung. It’ll be my Papa Johns pizza. See you Monday”

JS: “Cheers mate”.

with apologies to all 

 

[Niels]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

It’s far from improbable that the winger could be onside. It’s highly likely that he was onside due to the type of kick, the distance etc. 

The person in the very best position to call it was the TJ who clearly states onside. Anything else is either pure speculation or stirring

I think the key issue is that the video referee identified the wrong player when saying everyone was onside. 

That in itself causes doubt. 

I can't understand how he forgot or misread the play, I think all of us knew the scorer wasn't in picture. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Niels

[Niels]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The line in bold is one of the weirdest things I've read here, with respect

Is this the reverse angle that has convinced you he was offside? 

Yes but of course it continued until we saw the winger who in my opinion, and lots of others, couldn't possibly have been onside.

The fact he was so far ahead the video referee forgot about him is to me, very illuminating.

Until there is real evidence though, it is a judgement call. Which is why there are differences of opinion. 

 

 

 

[RP London]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes know that RP, it was that Dave said there was no evidence to say the on field officials were wrong, I was just saying that with the camera angles it was as not conclusive that they were right in awarding it.

If like in As we had the captains call it may be better.

but if he captained called that he would have lost, as again they have to prove that the referee us wrong.. so it wouldnt have made any difference. 

The initial call by all was that it was ok, I have seen nothing to say otherwise and I dont understand how people can claim that he was offside when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to say that he was. There are 3 people though in the officiating crew who said he was onside from what they saw and, correct me if i am wrong as havent gone back to look at it, I dont remember the Salford players claiming he was offside, as i say, happy to be told they did as i havent re watched it.

[LeeF]

21 minutes ago, Niels said:

I think the key issue is that the video referee identified the wrong player when saying everyone was onside. 

That in itself causes doubt. 

I can't understand how he forgot or misread the play, I think all of us knew the scorer wasn't in picture. 

He actually said that the TJ had confirmed he was onside. There was no issue and no doubt