Fri 22nd Sept: SL: Leigh Leopards v Wigan Warriors KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

And Saints would have finished second, and Wigan’s new owner would have realised he had been sold a pup, and closed the gates…

Did anyone actually watch the last 20 minutes? If so, if the scores had been tied, who was in a position to get a drop goal? Or, indeed, had there been more at stake, who was going to score the deciding try. 

If my Auntie......... you fill in the rest.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I have just been to look at it again and I think we may have all been thrown a red herring.

The on field ref says to look at contact with the outside shoulder and then everyone looks at the French contact.

But there is an earlier lead runner from Leigh in the play who makes some contact with Ellis on his outside shoulder.  The ref is also clearly looking at it.

I suspect that is the one he wanted to the VR to look at and he focused on the French one by mistake. 

Not saying there was enough in the lead runner to chalk it off but it was contact on the outside shoulder and more contact than on French to be sure.

I must admit, when watching back I did think this - there absolutely may be something in what you say. The contact earlier did seem more substantial, although we don't get a great view of it.

But the VR did appear to say that was ok pretty quickly - but whether that was because he hadn't really noticed it or had reviewed and was OK with it, I don't know!

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I must admit, when watching back I did think this - there absolutely may be something in what you say. The contact earlier did seem more substantial, although we don't get a great view of it.

But the VR did appear to say that was ok pretty quickly - but whether that was because he hadn't really noticed it or had reviewed and was OK with it, I don't know!

Could I just say being at the ground and in an advantageous position to see the movement to the "try" Mr Moore challenged, when crossing his chest to signal no try then pointed directly to where French was, not at where you and Dunbar are suggesting there was a first offence for obstruction, I honestly thought he was going to question the grounding at first so innocuous was the obstruction on French.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Did anyone actually watch the last 20 minutes? If so, if the scores had been tied, who was in a position to get a drop goal

I did and I also watched the previous 32 mins, making 52 mins in total when Wigan could not score another single point, when did you expect them to score the 82nd, 85th or even 90th minute.

And there would have been no need for Wigan to drop a goal they would have lost by a point, Ben Reynolds would have kicked the goal had the try been awarded naking the score 12 - 10 you are probably mixing Reynolds up with Harry Smith on goal kicking ability when we all know Smith is pants in that dept.

And how you have the gall to call someone for telling the future!

[Dunbar]

43 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I must admit, when watching back I did think this - there absolutely may be something in what you say. The contact earlier did seem more substantial, although we don't get a great view of it.

But the VR did appear to say that was ok pretty quickly - but whether that was because he hadn't really noticed it or had reviewed and was OK with it, I don't know!

I don't think either was enough to disallow the try.  Just that the on field ref actually had that lead runner in mind when he sent it up.  There was definitely more of a case for that one (although not enough) and it was the 'correct' shoulder contact to be an issue.

And the ref clearly looked at it as the play progressed.

My point is that I think the video ref checked the wrong contact and his 'ok to this point' was because he didn't think he had to look at it.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just that the on field ref actually had that lead runner in mind when he sent it up

Complete supposition, you have not a clue what be had in mind.

[Jinking Jimmy]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I did and I also watched the previous 32 mins, making 52 mins in total when Wigan could not score another single point, when did you expect them to score the 82nd, 85th or even 90th minute.

And there would have been no need for Wigan to drop a goal they would have lost by a point, Ben Reynolds would have kicked the goal had the try been awarded naking the score 12 - 10 you are probably mixing Reynolds up with Harry Smith on goal kicking ability when we all know Smith is pants in that dept.

And how you have the gall to call someone for telling the future!

So Ben Reynolds has not missed a goal kick this season?

[idrewthehaggis]

Really what this and ample other incidents (usually involving Solly sadly) proves is that RL needs to review and work together to support and improve referees.

Refs Change

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Complete supposition, you have not a clue what be had in mind.

Yes, I know.  I am indeed surmising. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

So Ben Reynolds has not missed a goal kick this season?

Yes but not a lot, and not from that many from that distance, awaiting for Wigginers to tell me how good Smith is at goal kicking.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I know.  I am indeed surmising. 

Ah but you have been coming on here long enough to realise that there are those who will think it is the truth.

[Jinking Jimmy]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes but not a lot, and not from that many from that distance, awaiting for Wigginers to tell me how good Smith is at goal kicking.

Smith is very inconsistent but Reynolds does not kick at 100 per cent.

[GUBRATS]

22 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I know.  I am indeed surmising. 

As we all are 

Anyway as it was myself freed from suspension that reignited the discussion I'll leave it now to be consigned to history , we lost , but personally I'm hoping we have Mr Moore or Mr Griffith's as the ref on Friday now

[phiggins]

One match ban for Amone. That plus Hardaker ruled out and Asiata unlikely to play could see one of the more one sided play off games next week

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

One match ban for Amone. That plus Hardaker ruled out and Asiata unlikely to play could see one of the more one sided play off games next week

I'd appeal, he was in the position but moved to avoid the crusher scenario 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think either was enough to disallow the try.  Just that the on field ref actually had that lead runner in mind when he sent it up.  There was definitely more of a case for that one (although not enough) and it was the 'correct' shoulder contact to be an issue.

And the ref clearly looked at it as the play progressed.

My point is that I think the video ref checked the wrong contact and his 'ok to this point' was because he didn't think he had to look at it.

Watching back, I do tend to agree with Harry that the ref is pointing out the French incident. I think if he was going back to the earlier one he would be more explicit. 

But it is interesting in that the first dummy runner absolutely does hit the outside shoulder and is more of an issue. I'm mot sure whether the fact the ball was past them would negate the issue, but that one could easily have been pulled to be fair. 

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, phiggins said:

 You'd imagine that in general play, if they're not sure an offence is committed then they'd play on, so there must be a fine line between disallowing a try and an no try going to the VR.

Where the ref suspects a "possible" obstruction but would have played on, he should send it up as a try.

He should only rule no-try if he is certain an offence was committed.

How far do we want to take things like this? There are "possible" obstructions on every play. Starts with the PTB. The tackled player is between the markers and the dummy-half as he plays the ball. The reductio ad absurdum would be to send every try up as no-try and ask the VR to prove the markers weren't obstructed.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I did and I also watched the previous 32 mins, making 52 mins in total when Wigan could not score another single point, when did you expect them to score the 82nd, 85th or even 90th minute.

And there would have been no need for Wigan to drop a goal they would have lost by a point, Ben Reynolds would have kicked the goal had the try been awarded naking the score 12 - 10 you are probably mixing Reynolds up with Harry Smith on goal kicking ability when we all know Smith is pants in that dept.

And how you have the gall to call someone for telling the future!

I see. You were certain to kick the goal. Of course you were. Are they printing papers in Leigh with the correct score? You could even stage your own Grand final victory parade, after beating Hull KR, Catalans and Saints along the way. Who scored the tries that clinched it for you? 

[Exiled Wiganer]

15 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I'd appeal, he was in the position but moved to avoid the crusher scenario 

Of course he did. Perhaps the fairest thing would be to ban King for having his head attached to his body by his neck?

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Of course he did. Perhaps the fairest thing would be to ban King for having his head attached to his body by his neck?

Somebody upset you ? 

[unapologetic pedant]

On 24/09/2023 at 13:43, Harry Stottle said:

 there was a time when those in attendance would in unison shout forward and they were in the main correct and the ref would concur, but in those days the ball had to be 'obviously'  thrown backwards, today the 'line or flat pass' opens that up to many more errors from the officials.

Harry's ball-tracking technology - Harry shouts "Forward", ref agrees. Sorted.

From the quote and previous debates, I know when you say "forward" you don't mean "forward". You mean something like "not obviously backwards".

The law says "forward". How would you rewrite it?

Give a figure. How far backwards should a pass have to travel to be legal? And is this out of the hands or relative to the ground?

[Harry Stottle]

30 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I see. You were certain to kick the goal. Of course you were. Are they printing papers in Leigh with the correct score? You could even stage your own Grand final victory parade, after beating Hull KR, Catalans and Saints along the way. Who scored the tries that clinched it for you? 

No mention of the 52 minutes that Wigan failed to add points I see.

Edited September 25 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Harry's ball-tracking technology - Harry shouts "Forward", ref agrees. Sorted.

From the quote and previous debates, I know when you say "forward" you don't mean "forward". You mean something like "not obviously backwards".

The law says "forward". How would you rewrite it?

Give a figure. How far backwards should a pass have to travel to be legal? And is this out of the hands or relative to the ground?

Picked the right name didn't you!

Just as a point of interest how old are you?

[LeeF]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Watching back, I do tend to agree with Harry that the ref is pointing out the French incident. I think if he was going back to the earlier one he would be more explicit. 

But it is interesting in that the first dummy runner absolutely does hit the outside shoulder and is more of an issue. I'm mot sure whether the fact the ball was past them would negate the issue, but that one could easily have been pulled to be fair. 

The VR did look at the correct incident as the ball had long gone from the earlier potential incident and had no impact. 

I actually think that the VR wanted to give a try but couldn’t find clear evidence to support as the camera angle from “Leigh” did not show the impact on French whilst the other angles were not fully clear.

The reason for this being the very high threshold required for a VR to overrule the onfield decision which rules out going on a likely and more towards a definite if you follow what I’m saying. Whether that needs tweaking is a discussion for next season. 

This morning’s review session will have been lively!!!

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The VR did look at the correct incident as the ball had long gone from the earlier potential incident and had no impact. 

I actually think that the VR wanted to give a try but couldn’t find clear evidence to support as the camera angle from “Leigh” did not show the impact on French whilst the other angles were not fully clear.

The reason for this being the very high threshold required for a VR to overrule the onfield decision which rules out going on a likely and more towards a definite if you follow what I’m saying. Whether that needs tweaking is a discussion for next season. 

This morning’s review session will have been lively!!!

The behind the try line showed clearly it was minimal contact on the inside shoulder not impacting French's ability to get close to Gildart