Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 1:52 pm  

mistermoo wrote:

Had he have JUMPED I said! How can he out of play if he has jumped?

If he jumped from outside the field of play. IE, from having his foot on the line.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 2:19 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

If he jumped from outside the field of play. IE, from having his foot on the line.

If he jumped and patted the ball and the ball was released before he hit the ground it would have been play on. The point i'm making is that the ball was still in play until it touched Whiting.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 2:26 pm  

mistermoo wrote:

If he jumped and patted the ball and the ball was released before he hit the ground it would have been play on. The point i'm making is that the ball was still in play until it touched Whiting.

If he'd have jumped from in field. The point is that Whiting was in contact with the line immedialtly before he touched the ball. Rogues theory is that this essentially means he IS the line, so the ball went out from the kick, rather than being carried out by whiting.
It feels wrong in this situ, as if the fact the ball bouces should change the desicion, but unless a ref (and I've emailed Cummins's address from the sky sports website) tells me otherwise, I'm inclined to think it should have been Hull's head and feed.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 2:29 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

that cannot be right! the player is considered to be out of play, but not part of the touchline, the emphasis is on the player to be in play or this (as chris saint alluded to) would be open to massive abuse

It feels wrong but it may be right

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 2:40 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

"The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line

Therefore Whiting is in touch in control of the ball. Either way it's a Saints head and feed. If he had received a pass from a Hull player and was stood on the line it would be a Saints scrum. If he had intercepted a pass and already had his foot on the line it would be a scrum to Saints. There is no difference. He caught the ball and was in touch at the same time in exactly the same way as he would if he'd received a pass. The ref was correct.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 2:48 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Therefore Whiting is in touch in control of the ball. Either way it's a Saints head and feed. If he had received a pass from a Hull player and was stood on the line it would be a Saints scrum. If he had intercepted a pass and already had his foot on the line it would be a scrum to Saints. There is no difference. He caught the ball and was in touch at the same time in exactly the same way as he would if he'd received a pass. The ref was correct.

this is my understanding of it

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 3:24 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Therefore Whiting is in touch in control of the ball. Either way it's a Saints head and feed. If he had received a pass from a Hull player and was stood on the line it would be a Saints scrum. If he had intercepted a pass and already had his foot on the line it would be a scrum to Saints. There is no difference. He caught the ball and was in touch at the same time in exactly the same way as he would if he'd received a pass. The ref was correct.

So if, in a situation of a (half) break a saints player is stood with his foot on the line and the hull player passed it to him, you would deem the saints player to be the one to take it into touch, there for a hull scrum?

That, to me, feels right in the spirit of the game, but i can't help thinking that the written rules say different, implying if you hit a player who's in contact with the line, then you've essentially passed it into touch.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 3:39 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

So if, in a situation of a (half) break a saints player is stood with his foot on the line and the hull player passed it to him, you would deem the saints player to be the one to take it into touch, there for a hull scrum?

That, to me, feels right in the spirit of the game, but i can't help thinking that the written rules say different, implying if you hit a player who's in contact with the line, then you've essentially passed it into touch.

If you make a play for it then yes. How can it be any other way? If a Hull player passes it and your foot is on the line and you knocked it forward trying to recover possession are you saying that it should be my head and feed because I was out of bounds when I made a play for it? How can that be? There's a difference between being completely out of bounds and on the line surely? The game's rules should be interpreted towards the spirit of the game in conjunction with technicality because we already do that with high tackles i.e. a high tackle is considered to be such but then the spirit in which the high tackle was attempted is also included in a decision.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 3:45 pm  

McClennan wrote:

If a Hull player passes it and your foot is on the line and you knocked it forward trying to recover possession are you saying that it should be my head and feed because I was out of bounds when I made a play for it?

I don't know, I need someone with real authority to clarify it for, as its drving me crazy. I agree with you that in the spirit of the game the decison given on monday was correct and that the above situation would be farcical, but I just can't shake the fact I think the smallprint of the rules says otherwise.

Maybe it's that I don't read so well, but the written rule on the previous page didn't clarify it either way.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 4:43 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Therefore Whiting is in touch in control of the ball. Either way it's a Saints head and feed. If he had received a pass from a Hull player and was stood on the line it would be a Saints scrum. If he had intercepted a pass and already had his foot on the line it would be a scrum to Saints. There is no difference. He caught the ball and was in touch at the same time in exactly the same way as he would if he'd received a pass. The ref was correct.

If he was stood on the line and a Hull player passed it to him, then it would be head and feed to Saints, as it was the Hull player who passed the ball who would have been deemed to have put the ball into touch as Whiting is out of play and is part of the touchline. It doesn't matter if it's an inch or a yard.

If he touches/catches a ball whilst out of the field of play from an opposing player then it's head and feed to his side (Hull in this case).