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

[north yorks trinity]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This is where the paradox comes in as the player who has decided to fall to the ground, if not touched, can't stand up and continue otherwise the ref would have to award a penalty for the original obstruction. 

So if the defending side are in the lead they should just leave him there!

[north yorks trinity]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This is where the paradox comes in as the player who has decided to fall to the ground, if not touched, can't stand up and continue otherwise the ref would have to award a penalty for the original obstruction. 

So if the defending side are in the lead they should just leave him there!

[The Blues Ox]

39 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Does everyone still think the ref's got everything spot on?!

I do think they did just about(apart from the forward pass) but they really are not helped by a number of little nuances in the laws that leave things a little open to interprettion. I also think as soon as the video ref is introduced then you do away with a little bit of common sense and have to apply the rules exactly to the letter of the law. In live play Kendall did not deem the player to be interfering with play and awarded the try, we can watch the replay a million times and see that the players actions have no bearing at all on the try and he is not even in the defenders eye line but as soon as it goes upstairs the law has to be applied as written despite that try been given as a try 100 times out of 100 if you do not have a video ref.

[The Blues Ox]

4 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

So if the defending side are in the lead they should just leave him there!

Yes.  Its a daft rule, obviously the interpretation has only come in maybe in the last couple of seasons and in my opinion it is another that probably just needs tweeking a bit.

[north yorks trinity]

Regarding the other issue on which LeeF and I have differing views, I guess it all comes down to the definition of the verb "to encroach" and whether encroaching requires movement or just being. I interpret it as the former and this interpretation, rather than trolling, explains my understanding of the law.

But hey, without grey areas all those poor lawyers would be out of a job.

[LeeF]

24 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I do think they did just about(apart from the forward pass) but they really are not helped by a number of little nuances in the laws that leave things a little open to interprettion. I also think as soon as the video ref is introduced then you do away with a little bit of common sense and have to apply the rules exactly to the letter of the law. In live play Kendall did not deem the player to be interfering with play and awarded the try, we can watch the replay a million times and see that the players actions have no bearing at all on the try and he is not even in the defenders eye line but as soon as it goes upstairs the law has to be applied as written despite that try been given as a try 100 times out of 100 if you do not have a video ref.

I don’t think that was the case. I think due to the position of Kendall  & the “try scoring” area that Ashurst wasn’t in his vision hence why it went up as a try. 

If we get to VRs at all games then the “try” would still have been disallowed even with just a camera in the stand unlike the Salford/ Saints issue a couple of weeks ago.

[LeeF]

56 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

I think we're going round in circles so probably best to leave it here but just so I can understand your interpretation, are you saying that any lead runner should always be more than 10 metres away from an active defender (or potentially active defender) whenever the ball is kicked by a team mate?

If that's the correct interpretation, I look forward to seeing it consistently applied!!!

Read the laws as per the previous link but read them in full including the notes. It is very very clear. 
 

And it has been consistently applied for many years. 

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

Read the laws as per the previous link but read them in full including the notes. It is very very clear. 
 

And it has been consistently applied for many years. 

I also think it's clear as long as everyone has the same understanding of the English language (though on law this can be the tricky bit!), I have read them carefully, consider myself reasonably intelligent and have obviously interpreted them differently from you, who also come across as educated and intelligent!!

[The Blues Ox]

10 hours ago, LeeF said:

I don’t think that was the case. I think due to the position of Kendall  & the “try scoring” area that Ashurst wasn’t in his vision hence why it went up as a try. 

If we get to VRs at all games then the “try” would still have been disallowed even with just a camera in the stand unlike the Salford/ Saints issue a couple of weeks ago.

The point still stands that without a video ref that try would have been awarded 100 times out of 100 but if sent to a video ref it should be diallowed every time according to the rules. To me that says that the rule just needs to be adjusted slightly. A very simple adjustment would be to put the onus on the ref to decide if a player is interfering or not, it is this on one of the rules but the other rule I posted completley removes that as an option. In this case by allowing the ref some leeway when it is sent to the video ref it makes the decision on this try very easy. Attacker not in defenders eyeline so has no bearing on the result so is not deemed to be interfering and a try can be given which only a minority of people would have had a problem with.

We allow players to stand offside and deem them not to be interfering hundreds of times during play despite on occasion, like markers not square and allowed to play on, allowing that means it influences the attacking sides play. I don't think a slight rule change would have too much of a negative bbearing on the game.

[LeeF]

54 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

The point still stands that without a video ref that try would have been awarded 100 times out of 100 but if sent to a video ref it should be diallowed every time according to the rules. To me that says that the rule just needs to be adjusted slightly. A very simple adjustment would be to put the onus on the ref to decide if a player is interfering or not, it is this on one of the rules but the other rule I posted completley removes that as an option. In this case by allowing the ref some leeway when it is sent to the video ref it makes the decision on this try very easy. Attacker not in defenders eyeline so has no bearing on the result so is not deemed to be interfering and a try can be given which only a minority of people would have had a problem with.

We allow players to stand offside and deem them not to be interfering hundreds of times during play despite on occasion, like markers not square and allowed to play on, allowing that means it influences the attacking sides play. I don't think a slight rule change would have too much of a negative bbearing on the game.

Whilst I understand what you are saying you will end up with more inconsistency with more minute judgement calls. Also you don’t have to be in someone’s eyeline to not have a bearing on the result. 
 

I don’t agree with the 100 out of 100 statement. The offside player in this instance could have been picked up by the In Goal Judge and if SL go to a VR at every game which is mooted then the VR should pick it up if the referee doesn’t. 
 

The not square scenario are penalised if they influence the attacking side unless the non offending team gets an advantage. 
 

If you take the Ashurst incident not only was he in front of the kicker he was within 10 metres of the catcher and moved towards the catcher. It is impossible not to make a case that he should be correctly penalised either under the existing laws, where it is stated in black & white, or under your proposal. Just imagine the furore if that had been awarded a try because the referee thought he wasn’t interfering. There would soon be a clamour to revert to the existing laws and not just from Wellens, Rowley or the odd Wakefield fan. 

Edited August 20, 2023 by LeeF

[bobbruce]

12 hours ago, north yorks trinity said:

This is just plain wrong. This would basically do away with lead runners! He is played onside immediately the ball deflects from the Cas player. I haven't checked, and so could yet have to eat humble pie, but I'd make pretty hefty wager that Ashurst doesn't change direction till after he is played onside.

He can’t be played onside as he is inside the 10. 

[north yorks trinity]

26 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

He can’t be played onside as he is inside the 10. 

Why not?

[bobbruce]

18 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Why not?

Because you have already had the effect on play. So the ref can either play on to see if the receiving side gain an advantage or give the penalty. 

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Because you have already had the effect on play. So the ref can either play on to see if the receiving side gain an advantage or give the penalty. 

In what way have you had an effect on play? 

Based on this thread it seems a misconception that being inside the 10 is enough reason per se to award a penalty.  Its not! I'm busy right now but will explain later using the laws and accompanying notes.

Edited August 20, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[north yorks trinity]

OK so here goes with the proof that being inside the 10 is not enough reason in and of itself to result in a penalty!

It's actually quite simple and clearly implicit in the first of the supplementary notes about offside which reads as follows:

Catcher claiming off side 1. A player who catches the ball near an off side opponent must not go out of their way to make interference in play by the offside player unavoidable. They should proceed with normal play and rely on the Referee to penalise the off side player if the latter interferes with play. If the catcher deliberately and unnecessarily runs into the off side player then play should proceed.

Now if the catchers runs 10 m or more they can't, by definition, run into an offside player, given that: Placed onside 3. An off side player is placed onside if: (a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball.

So again, by definition, the catcher must have run fewer than 10 m before unnecessarily running into the offside player. But if being in the 10m resulted in an automatic penalty, play wouldn't proceed, it would have already resulted in a penalty against the offside player.

Really quite simple when you break it down like that!

So based on that, Ashurst was clearly played onside when the ball hit Austin's left hip approximately 0.22 seconds after leaving Gale's boot (timed by me, a few times, with a variation of 0.15-0.25 seconds!!). I mention the time because it is less than the average human reaction time and therefore relevant to sensible decision making regarding the only realistic reason to consider disallowing the try.

The possible reasons for disallowing the try boil down to Ashurst: a. taking part in the game (at any time after running beyond the ball carrier); b. attempting to influence the course of the game (at any time after running beyond the ball carrier); or c. encroaching within 10m of an opponent who is waiting for the ball.

I think we have a consensus that a. and b. don't apply, so it can only have been c.. But the science shows that there wasn't enough time for Ashurst to even decide to alter his trajectory in this (estimated) 0.22s, let alone do anything about it.

So I would argue very strongly indeed that Jack Smith's decision was not, as has been suggested, pedantic but correct. It was in fact, plain wrong. I wouldn't even expect that this level of analysis should have been necessary to make the decision, it was intuitively obvious until, perhaps, ultra slo mo got the better of common sense. 

It's ironic and especially galling given that it runs counter to the usual narrative of the VR finding creative ways to back up a dubious on field call.

Edited August 20, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[north yorks trinity]

5 hours ago, bobbruce said:

 

Glad my earlier post made you laugh. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the longer one I sent just prior to this one.

Edited August 20, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[bobbruce]

42 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Glad my earlier post made you laugh. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the longer one I sent just prior to this one.

I’ll leave you to it there doesn’t seem any point. 

[north yorks trinity]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I’ll leave you to it there doesn’t seem any point. 

Fair enough. We've got to leave it somewhere after all! I'm just interested if you disagree with anything I wrote. It seems flawless to me but then again perhaps that's not a completely unbiased judgement!! 

Edited August 20, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[north yorks trinity]

7 hours ago, LeeF said:

Also you don’t have to be in someone’s eyeline to not have a bearing on the result. 

Sure, but do you think that applied in this case? Any new thoughts?

[LeeF]

10 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I’ll leave you to it there doesn’t seem any point. 

Correct. He just refuses to read the relevant bits of the law and the accompanying notes which have been quoted, linked & posted numerous times. 

[north yorks trinity]

@ LeeF why the laughing emoji? It wasn't an especially funny post so I guess you think I got something wrong. If so, what?

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Correct. He just refuses to read the relevant bits of the law and the accompanying notes which have been quoted, linked & posted numerous times. 

Genuinely, what relevant bits have I missed? I honestly don't know and if I've really got it all wrong I'd like to know why.

Edited August 20, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[LeeF]

Just now, north yorks trinity said:

@ LeeF why the laughing emoji. It wasn't an especially funny post so I guess you think I got something wrong. If so, what?

Genuinely, what relevant bits have I missed? I honestly don't know and if I've really got it all wrong I'd like to know why.

You have been completely wrong since you started this discussion and have refused to listen to many other posters and to actually read the laws and notes in full however, and against my better judgement, I’ll respond but for the last time.

I refer you to the previous posts that I quoted you in referencing the relevant part of the laws and notes which you managed to either ignore or edit when quoted. The relevant bit, which is very clear and unambiguous is

Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage.
 

If the VR hadn’t called it then he would have been completely wrong and would have been discussing it tomorrow morning at his debrief.

The only advantage that could have been played would have been if the Cas player had collected the ball & raced away to score  

The choice is now yours but there is no point in discussing this further as you are coming across as a bad faith actor at best

[north yorks trinity]

3 minutes ago, LeeF said:

You have been completely wrong since you started this discussion and have refused to listen to many other posters and to actually read the laws and notes in full however, and against my better judgement, I’ll respond but for the last time.

I refer you to the previous posts that I quoted you in referencing the relevant part of the laws and notes which you managed to either ignore or edit when quoted. The relevant bit, which is very clear and unambiguous is

Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage.
 

If the VR hadn’t called it then he would have been completely wrong and would have been discussing it tomorrow morning at his debrief.

The only advantage that could have been played would have been if the Cas player had collected the ball & raced away to score  

The choice is now yours but there is no point in discussing this further as you are coming across as a bad faith actor at best

I feel like you are gaslighting me now with false and/or irrelevant justifications. But against my better judgement I'll have one more go.

As you haven't mentioned it, I presume you have no issue with how Ashurst went through the line as a lead runner, and you haven't mentioned that you thought that he took part in or attempted to influence play prior to the kick by Gale so I presume all is OK in your opinion up to this point. You appear to have been very clear that you feel Ashurst was penalised as a result of the following:

Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher... 

Ashurst had a guesstimated 0.22s (after which we was deemed onside under law 3b.) to both react to the kick and to move 10m from his opponent. Is that realistically possible? 

I'd genuinely love to sit down with a pint with you and get to the bottom of why we both seem to be failing to either understand or persuade the other. But I don't think this discussion is working so for that reason, I too am out. 

[John Drake]

I'm putting this one out of its misery now.