Interpretations : Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:51 pm  

Just interested in couple of rule interpretations from the Wigan Hull game. Good game I thought and though it grieves me to say it the pies deserved the win.

Firstly, when Wigan attempted a drop goal which was charged down, there were several Wigan players ahead of the kicker and within ten metres of the hull player that charged it down but they weren't called offside so Wigan got another set of six. How does this fit with the decision in last nights game where Walsh retrieved his own kick but saints were called offside?

Secondly, Washbrook and Sarginson went to catch a high ball. Both players were looking up at the ball not each other. Sarginson jumps, washbrook doesn't jump and doesn't put a hand on him but Sarginson lands on Washbrook and then lands awkwardly on the ground so Washbrook is penalised. What did Washbrook do to concede a penalty and how could he have avoided it?

Re: Interpretations : Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:39 pm  

They wouldn't be offside as the player charging down the kick has affected the kick and the Wigan players have no chance of not being infront. Calling Walsh offside last night was an error as Cummings said at the time.

As you say Sarginson was in the air and Washbrook wasn't,you can't touch a player in the air unless you yourself are also in the air competing for the ball. Washbrook conceded the penalty for touching a man while he was in the air,doesn't matter that he is looking at the ball he didn't jump. In that situation he has to either jump and compete for the ball or let the player land before hiting him.

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:46 am  

But he didn't know he was there and had no way of knowing. To me it's sarginson that makes the situation dangerous, he leaps and lands on washbrook. Washbrook makes no attempt to tackle him. Are we saying that if one player jumps either you have to jump as well or you can't compete for the ball? I think you have to accept that sometimes dangerous things happen in the game and that doesn't automatically mean an offence has been committed.

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:25 am  

Also I'm not convinced about that offside thing. I don't think the defending player playing at the ball is relevant. Defenders will always try to play at the ball, they have to. The point is that players ahead of the kicker and within ten metres of the ball are automatically considered to be offside regardless of what the defenders do. They are deliberately in that position because they've moved up and the kicker has dropped back.

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:33 am  

Refereeing is poor full stop, they do not ensure the play the ball is fast, as in the NRL, they allow interference at the tackle on the floor far too often, keeping players onside is a joke as times, as well as the markers moving.

The two games this week you could have had a penalty every few minutes, perhaps next season we need that at the start, until referees start controlling games and coaches stop interfering and slowing down tactics, the game will suffer for a while but then the message may get through.

Last night it was a penalty, a few are being a little pedantic, most times nothing would be said.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:45 am  

brook40 wrote:

They wouldn't be offside as the player charging down the kick has affected the kick and the Wigan players have no chance of not being infront. Calling Walsh offside last night was an error as Cummings said at the time.

As you say Sarginson was in the air and Washbrook wasn't,you can't touch a player in the air unless you yourself are also in the air competing for the ball. Washbrook conceded the penalty for touching a man while he was in the air,doesn't matter that he is looking at the ball he didn't jump. In that situation he has to either jump and compete for the ball or let the player land before hiting him.

But, washbrook didn't touch the jumping player, he stopped still before sarginson even jumped, sarginson took off and went over washbrook, at first glance you would assume it's the standard penalty, at second and I'm sure this will get mentioned in their review this week, it's the other way around, an anomaly if you will

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:45 am  

Harry Pinner what brook40 has explained to you is correct, but it seems to me you prefer to, or are reluctant to understand. You are though entitled to your opinion, even if you're wrong.

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:23 am  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

But, washbrook didn't touch the jumping player, he stopped still before sarginson even jumped, sarginson took off and went over washbrook, at first glance you would assume it's the standard penalty, at second and I'm sure this will get mentioned in their review this week, it's the other way around, an anomaly if you will

It doesn't mattter one bit if he stopped still or not,the rules say if a player is in the air you can't touch him unless you are competing for the ball. Washbrook has to either jump or move it's that simple.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:43 am  

brook40 wrote:

It doesn't mattter one bit if he stopped still or not,the rules say if a player is in the air you can't touch him unless you are competing for the ball. Washbrook has to either jump or move it's that simple.

He/'s not touched him though, sarginson has made contact with washbrook, he's not attempting to impede, or challenge, he's made no movement towards the player who wasn't even in the air when he got there, sarginson has put himself in a precarious position.

Thats very harsh, its like a centre back jumping up and over the back of a striker to impede them.

Re: Interpretations : Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:54 am  

Harry Pinner wrote:

But he didn't know he was there and had no way of knowing. To me it's sarginson that makes the situation dangerous, he leaps and lands on washbrook. Washbrook makes no attempt to tackle him. Are we saying that if one player jumps either you have to jump as well or you can't compete for the ball? I think you have to accept that sometimes dangerous things happen in the game and that doesn't automatically mean an offence has been committed.

Nah its defo a pen. The rules state you can't touch a player in the air and washbrook did.

Sargison did everything right, he put himself in the air like all fullbacks should as he knows he can't be touched.