Re: Unacceptable bias : Tue May 03, 2011 4:20 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the worst decision of the afternoon and one which Saints scored from.

When Meli kicked the ball Whiting had his feet on the touchline when he caught the ball, and was therefore out of play. The head and feed should have gone to Hull but went to Saints. Roby scored direct from that scrum and got Saints back unto the game.

I thought I saw it that way "live" on t.v.

I've just watched boots n all the tries and that's exactly what happened. Whiting did not carry the ball over the touchline.

I mentioned this one. SOmeone told me that the ball had bounced so it did not count???

Re: Unacceptable bias : Tue May 03, 2011 8:53 pm  

hull smallears wrote:

I mentioned this one. SOmeone told me that the ball had bounced so it did not count???

A friend called me tonight and he said he would check with a referee he knows to see if that is true. There is no doubt however that Whitings feet were on the line when he caught the ball.

The other school of thought is that the rule was changed a few years ago to prevent players just straddling the line and scooping the ball out and claiming the advantage. That maybe the reason for Saints head and feed.

I'll post on here if he gets back to me.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Tue May 03, 2011 8:59 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

A friend called me tonight and he said he would check with a referee he knows to see if that is true. There is no doubt however that Whitings feet were on the line when he caught the ball.

The other school of thought is that the rule was changed a few years ago to prevent players just straddling the line and scooping the ball out and claiming the advantage. That maybe the reason for Saints head and feed.

I'll post on here if he gets back to me.

I think they changed the straddling the line rule, but if Whiting did have both feet out and that means it should have been their ball it's an acceptable error. It's a hard thing to see and not the same as them missing 45 degree forward passes every week.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Tue May 03, 2011 9:02 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

but if Whiting did have both feet out

He didn't. Saw it AGAIN on the tries show. One foot and then the other. Ball was in hand. The decision was right.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Tue May 03, 2011 9:16 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

He didn't. Saw it AGAIN on the tries show. One foot and then the other. Ball was in hand. The decision was right.

His feet were on the line when he caught the ball. If you have still got it on sky+ freeze frame it.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 7:12 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

He didn't. Saw it AGAIN on the tries show. One foot and then the other. Ball was in hand. The decision was right.

Sorry SF, his feet are on the line when he catches it, I watched the tries show last night. Very hard call for the LMan though as Meli was probably obscuring the veiw of the ball.

However, I'm interested to see the results of the rule check, as I think the fact it bounced makes a difference.

I was chatting with a lad I plyed union with and we reckon if it were in that game, it would have been the correct desicion - FWIW.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 10:07 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

A friend called me tonight and he said he would check with a referee he knows to see if that is true. There is no doubt however that Whitings feet were on the line when he caught the ball.

The other school of thought is that the rule was changed a few years ago to prevent players just straddling the line and scooping the ball out and claiming the advantage. That maybe the reason for Saints head and feed.

I'll post on here if he gets back to me.

Perhaps you should have checked before calling it the worst decision of the match when, in reality you don't have a clue if it was or not.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 10:24 am  

mistermoo wrote:

Perhaps you should have checked before calling it the worst decision of the match when, in reality you don't have a clue if it was or not.

Accepted, but at the time of viewing I was unaware of any rule change, so presumed that as Whiting had caught the ball with his feet on the line he was out of play.

Do you know if the decision was correct and why?

I'm still waiting for a referees confirmation of the ruling, but I may have a better chance of getting a tax rebate.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 10:26 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Accepted, but at the time of viewing I was unaware of any rule change, so presumed that as Whiting had caught the ball with his feet on the line he was out of play.

Do you know if the decision was correct and why?

I'm still waiting for a referees confirmation of the ruling, but I may have a better chance of getting a tax rebate.

I think the decision was correct as the rule being referred to was abolished several years ago. But as I wasn't 100% certain I refrained from making rash statements and commenting on it.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 5:11 pm  

mistermoo wrote:

Perhaps you should have checked before calling it the worst decision of the match when, in reality you don't have a clue if it was or not.

It's called trolling and he's good at it.

Rogues = "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"