Fri 18th Aug: SL: Wakefield Trinity v Castleford Tigers KO 20:00 (Sky)

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, StandOffHalf said:

As I said, I can understand the call under the current interpretation.

I just think it's dumb and non-sensical where you can basically bring your hand down with minimal or zero control over the ball and be deemed to have scored.

But isn’t what you describe a “slam dunk”? There is control over the ball. You haven’t lost grip. 

[north yorks trinity]

9 minutes ago, LeeF said:

If you are within the 10 and not having an influence then what are you doing on the field would the coach’s view

He had been a lead runner. That's what he had been doing on the field!!

[The Mighty Trin]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

If you are within the 10 and not having an influence then what are you doing on the field would the coach’s view

Lee don't want to get into trouble as I never complain about referees, I didn't see the game nor listen to it on the Radio as I was at a barbecue North of the border however my Dad watched it with his two Cas mates on mute as that other soft sport was on in the background lol and both Cas fans agreed there were some ropey decisions not all through the game but what led upto how the game unfolded. At the end of the day we just wasn't good enough however all is not lost, still believe we can find 2 wins. If John is reading this was my Dad's & his Cas mates views, not mine. 

Fingers we can survive but credit to Cas for grinding out what could be a crucial win.

Up the Trin  

[StandOffHalf]

13 minutes ago, LeeF said:

But isn’t what you describe a “slam dunk”? There is control over the ball. You haven’t lost grip. 

It is one of the things that most interests me in try-scoring situations.

For me, it is a ''legitimate'' grounding when one can exert influence on the ball - ie one's grip determining where the ball moves.

When the hand is following the ball/on top of the ball but not controlling the flight of the ball, it is something I would tend to regard as an iffy or suspect grounding (obviously this doesn't include situations where the ball is on the ground, as a touch is good enough then). 

The one last night was pretty close and I would have to see it again. I felt his hand lost control and that he cushioned it to the ground.

The interpretations do back up the ref's position last night, so I'm not bashing him as such. I'd just like there to be control throughout the grounding process.

Let's agree to disagree. I appreciate your points.

Edited August 19, 2023 by StandOffHalf

[daz39]

This thread alone proves how much the average RL fan in this country understands (or doesn't) the laws and workings of the game.

[LeeF]

5 minutes ago, The Mighty Trin said:

Lee don't want to get into trouble as I never complain about referees, I didn't see the game nor listen to it on the Radio as I was at a barbecue North of the border however my Dad watched it with his two Cas mates on mute as that other soft sport was on in the background lol and both Cas fans agreed there were some ropey decisions not all through the game but what led upto how the game unfolded. At the end of the day we just wasn't good enough however all is not lost, still believe we can find 2 wins. If John is reading this was my Dad's & his Cas mates views, not mine. 

Fingers we can survive but credit to Cas for grinding out what could be a crucial win.

Up the Trin  

There seriously wasn’t any “ropey” decisions. The disallowed tries, especially, for the offsides were clear cut. 

[daz39]

6 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

He had been a lead runner. That's what he had been doing on the field!!

Who then changed direction and headed towards the play, therefore making himself active in the play, being within 10 when the ball was kicked = OFFSIDE - Simple!!

It matters not what he WAS doing it's what he DID do after.

[daz39]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

There seriously wasn’t any “ropey” decisions. The disallowed tries, especially, for the offsides were clear cut. 

Correct and for those fans arguing it, if ti was against your team you'd be in agreement then.

Perfectly correct decisions, great decisions all round by the match officials.

[LeeF]

2 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

It is one of the things that most interests me in try-scoring situations.

For me, it is a ''legitimate'' grounding when one can exert influence on the ball - ie one's grip determining where the ball moves.

When the hand is following the ball/on top of the ball but not controlling the flight of the ball, it is something I would tend to regard as an iffy or suspect grounding.

The one last night was pretty close and I would have to see it again. I felt his hand lost control and that he cushioned it to the ground.

The interpretations do back up the ref's interpretation last night, so I'm not bashing him as such. I'd just like there to be control throughout the grounding process.

Let's agree to disagree. I appreciate your points.

I actually do understand what you are, I think, trying to say but what is the definition of “control”? If I touch the ball I am exerting a force on it and thereby are controlling it to some extent. That’s how we got to where we are today. 
 

I’m not looking to fall out but that Cas try was a try. It’s not even subjective based on the replays I saw and it was like numerous others given in previous matches. 
 

At the end of the day Wakefield only have themselves to blame. They seemed to be out enthused, have limited ideas with ball in hand and strangely lacked commitment. Cas have been very poor on the commitment front this season but last night they were almost unrecognisable. 

[LeeF]

12 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

He had been a lead runner. That's what he had been doing on the field!!

And should have continued running and not changed direction towards the ball

[Griff]

On 17/08/2023 at 20:22, Josef K said:

Doesn’t everyone in West Yorkshire support leeds united,

If they played in our back garden, I'd close the curtains.

[The Mighty Trin]

Games done guys relevant to what people's views are on the game its not going to change the outcome. For us Trinity fans on here, will all agree the main part for me at least reading what people have said watching it our commitment wasn't there. Cas turned up we didn't simple regardless of the decisions. It's the same old same we just don't have clue how to utilise the ball near the opponents line. Think there is some posters on here just loving the fact we lost and like to stick it in. 

Anyway let's hope the boys can get themselves ready for Salford next week

[Griff]

28 minutes ago, The Mighty Trin said:

Lee don't want to get into trouble as I never complain about referees, I didn't see the game nor listen to it on the Radio as I was at a barbecue North of the border however my Dad watched it with his two Cas mates on mute as that other soft sport was on in the background lol and both Cas fans agreed there were some ropey decisions not all through the game but what led upto how the game unfolded. At the end of the day we just wasn't good enough however all is not lost, still believe we can find 2 wins. If John is reading this was my Dad's & his Cas mates views, not mine. 

Fingers we can survive but credit to Cas for grinding out what could be a crucial win.

Up the Trin  

And these Cas mates were qualified referees, were they?

[The Blues Ox]

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

And these Cas mates were qualified referees, were they?

I wouldn't read too much in to if they were or not, Ive spoke to a couple of qualified ref's over the game last night and both would have given that offside no try as a try if they were refiing live, which is what Chris Kendall did, 1 agreed that it was correctly chalked off but the other was not aware of the rule and would have given the try as they did not deem the attacker to be interfering if they had been in the video ref position. FWIW both agreed the forward pass no try was an incorrect call watching the replay. Again though it just shows that there are some inconsistencies in not only the rules but how they are policed and having to make a split second decision adds a ton of pressure and the ref's do it for the most part without any benefit of a replay so to get so many calls right they do a great job. 

[north yorks trinity]

23 minutes ago, LeeF said:

And should have continued running and not changed direction towards the ball

Now you are using a different explanation. Previously you said the laws are black and white (they're really not) and anyone inside the 10 is automatically affecting play (they aren't necessarily, just as someone 10.1m from the ball could be). Now you are saying it mattered what he was doing i.e. moving toward the ball. So having both accepted shades of grey exist in interpretation of the law, my view is that what should be important is whether the offside player has any bearing whatsoever on how the play subsequently unfolds. I strongly contend that in both the contentious "within the 10" decisions, the Wakey player didn't affect the outcome as I believe the try and the knock on would have occurred anyway. You presumably believe either the decision should always be based on the arbitary number of 10 metres (the fact that you and the VR mentioned a change of direction suggests this isn't the case) or you believe the outcome was affected by the offside player. If the latter I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[north yorks trinity]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I wouldn't read too much in to if they were or not, Ive spoke to a couple of qualified ref's over the game last night and both would have given that offside no try as a try if they were refiing live, which is what Chris Kendall did, 1 agreed that it was correctly chalked off but the other was not aware of the rule and would have given the try as they did not deem the attacker to be interfering if they had been in the video ref position. FWIW both agreed the forward pass no try was an incorrect call watching the replay. Again though it just shows that there are some inconsistencies in not only the rules but how they are policed and having to make a split second decision adds a ton of pressure and the ref's do it for the most part without any benefit of a replay so to get so many calls right they do a great job. 

Agree with all that. Just a shame that we can't have a debate without somehow being made to feel a bit dirty if we disagree with some decisions. I suppose the luck of the draw says that decisions don't necessarily even out over the course of a game and human nature dictates that we'll dwell on it more if our own team is adversely affected, especially in an important game. 

[StandOffHalf]

51 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I actually do understand what you are, I think, trying to say but what is the definition of “control”? If I touch the ball I am exerting a force on it and thereby are controlling it to some extent. That’s how we got to where we are today. 
 

I’m not looking to fall out but that Cas try was a try. It’s not even subjective based on the replays I saw and it was like numerous others given in previous matches. 
 

At the end of the day Wakefield only have themselves to blame. They seemed to be out enthused, have limited ideas with ball in hand and strangely lacked commitment. Cas have been very poor on the commitment front this season but last night they were almost unrecognisable. 

Better team on the night won. We can at least agree on that!

I read ''control'' in these try-scoring scenarios as being synonymous with ''gripping'' the ball. I can understand other takes and the call was in line with standards in 2023.

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Now you are using a different explanation. Previously you said the laws are black and white (they're really not) and anyone inside the 10 is automatically affecting play (they aren't necessarily, just as someone 10.1m from the ball could be). Now you are saying it mattered what he was doing i.e. moving toward the ball. So having both accepted shades of grey exist in interpretation of the law, my view is that what should be important is whether the offside player has any bearing whatsoever on how the play subsequently unfolds. I strongly contend that in both the contentious "within the 10" decisions, the Wakey player didn't affect the outcome as I believe the try and the knock on would have occurred anyway. You presumably believe either the decision should always be based on the arbitary number of 10 metres (the fact that you and the VR mentioned a change of direction suggests this isn't the case) or you believe the outcome was affected by the offside player. If the latter I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I’m not using a different explanation. The 10metres is not arbitrary. It is in black & white in the laws

[Griff]

27 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

.... the other was not aware of the rule ....

Run that by me again.

Referee. Unaware of a rule.

[StandOffHalf]

If you run towards the ball and are inside the 10 you're asking to be blown up.

Is there discretion on the part of refs to adjudicate on whether a player is ''advancing'' or ''staying out of the play'', even if he's inside the 10? Sometimes tries are given and I wonder about the 10 metre rule.

[Griff]

Just now, StandOffHalf said:

If you run towards the ball and are inside the 10 you're asking to be blown up.

 

Bit harsh.  A penalty is sufficient, surely.

[The Blues Ox]

20 minutes ago, Griff said:

Run that by me again.

Referee. Unaware of a rule.

Had one the other week in a Pennine league game with an experienced ref of over 15 years. Team A has a penalty and kicks for touch but does not find touch and Team B fullback allows the ball to roll over the dead ball line, and the resulting decision is.............

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Had one the other week in a Pennine league game with an experienced ref of over 15 years. Team A has a penalty and kicks for touch but does not find touch and Team B fullback allows the ball to roll over the dead ball line, and the resulting decision is.............

20m drop out.

Doesn't have to be the full back, though.  Could be any player.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Griff

[Ackroman]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

Who then changed direction and headed towards the play, therefore making himself active in the play, being within 10 when the ball was kicked = OFFSIDE - Simple!!

It matters not what he WAS doing it's what he DID do after.

Refs call the 10 all the time and no-one bats an eye lid if a player within the 10 encroaches towards the catching defender and a penalty is given. Whatever happens next is irrelevant unless it is to the advantage of the defender.

[The Blues Ox]

19 minutes ago, Griff said:

20m drop out.

Doesn't have to be the full back, though.  Could be any player.

To my surprise a 20m tap restart was given to the defending team but it was surprising how few people actually knew what the correct decision should have been.