Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:27 am  

theblondebomber wrote:

You didn't get out of your own half for the first 30odd minutes - but yet it was only 2 nill after 25 minutes
In the second half you were awarded 4 repeat sets in our 10m and came up with nothing - you spent 30 minutes in our half didn't you and only had 2 points to show for it. You've kind of gone against your 1st point
Saints spent 80% offside at the play the ball - 80%.... 80% really! Saints made 398 tackles in total, so your saying we was offside for 318 tackles? that equals to 53 sets of 6 btw I very much doubt that
flopped on nearly every tackle - please provide one of your amazing percentages

thought both defences were very tight last night...nothing given by either team....good hard game with the better team winning.

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:35 am  

Oxford Exile wrote:

thought both defences were very tight last night...nothing given by either team....good hard game with the better team winning.

your correct

TACKLES Wires 339 - Saints 398

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:36 am  

theblondebomber wrote:

You didn't get out of your own half for the first 30odd minutes - but yet it was only 2 nill after 25 minutes
In the second half you were awarded 4 repeat sets in our 10m and came up with nothing - you spent 30 minutes in our half didn't you and only had 2 points to show for it. You've kind of gone against your 1st point
Saints spent 80% offside at the play the ball - 80%.... 80% really! Saints made 398 tackles in total, so your saying we was offside for 318 tackles? that equals to 53 sets of 6 btw I very much doubt that
[b]flopped on nearly every tackle - please provide one of your amazing percentages[/b]
a the old flair that's was the saints way - Saints made 4 clean breaks to Warringtons 1

Wilkin made 59 tackles, I think that'll tell you an awful lot.

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:37 am  

theblondebomber wrote:

You didn't get out of your own half for the first 30odd minutes - but yet it was only 2 nill after 25 minutes
In the second half you were awarded 4 repeat sets in our 10m and came up with nothing - you spent 30 minutes in our half didn't you and only had 2 points to show for it. You've kind of gone against your 1st point
Saints spent 80% offside at the play the ball - 80%.... 80% really! Saints made 398 tackles in total, so your saying we was offside for 318 tackles? that equals to 53 sets of 6 btw I very much doubt that
flopped on nearly every tackle - please provide one of your amazing percentages
wheres the old flair that's was the saints way - Saints made 4 clean breaks to Warringtons 1

It must feel awful. I know I get it. We've lost plenty of big games too.

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:49 am  

As a neutral, this was my view:
1. Gidley was short when he first hit the ground with the ball and at no point did he ground it on the line or over it.
2. Lineham dropped it.
3. Peyroux grounded it.

The TJ was at at fault for number 2 as he had the best view. Joe Cobb was clearly at fault for 1 and 3. How he didn't notice number 1 is beyond me, and for number 3 not to be a try, Peyroux would have had to have mastered the art of floating just above the ground with at least two grown men lying on his back.

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:51 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

As a neutral, this was my view:
1. Gidley was short when he first hit the ground with the ball and at no point did he ground it on the line or over it.
2. Lineham dropped it.
3. Peyroux grounded it.

The TJ was at at fault for number 2 as he had the best view. Joe Cobb was clearly at fault for 1 and 3. How he didn't notice number 1 is beyond me, and for number 3 not to be a try, Peyroux would have had to have mastered the art of floating just above the ground with at least two grown men lying on his back.

in regards to 3... a lot of laws of physics were broken last night, just like been offside from your own actual kick... time travel

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:15 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

As a neutral, this was my view:
1. Gidley was short when he first hit the ground with the ball and at no point did he ground it on the line or over it.
2. Lineham dropped it.
3. Peyroux grounded it.

The TJ was at at fault for number 2 as he had the best view. Joe Cobb was clearly at fault for 1 and 3. How he didn't notice number 1 is beyond me, and for number 3 not to be a try, Peyroux would have had to have mastered the art of floating just above the ground with at least two grown men lying on his back.

For number 2 the TJ missed the forward pass for the knock on try.

For number 3 and the given no try, why did we have to PTB 10 metres back and not "x" amount inches from the line. Was that because Peyroux was tackled over the line with the "ball in levitation".

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:33 am  

Fans of every rugby league club can not be happy with the officiating of last nights game. It was an embarrassment to our sport. It wasn't just last night, it's every week. Sometimes Saints themselves benefit from poor decisions. We pass it off with sayings like 'swings and roundabouts', but the fact is, officiating in rugby league needs an overall and even simplifying in parts. For example, the ref goes to the screen because he isn't sure, so stop forcing him to make a decision.

Warrington should be going into next weeks final off the back of a clean kill, and as much as they'll never admit it, that is quite dissatisfying for both sets of fans.

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:37 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

As a neutral, this was my view:

The TJ was at at fault for number 2 as he had the best view. Joe Cobb was clearly at fault for 1 and 3. How he didn't notice number 1 is beyond me, and for number 3 not to be a try, Peyroux would have had to have mastered the art of floating just above the ground with at least two grown men lying on his back.

Exactly. I wonder what 'conclusive proof' actually means? It WAS conclusive, because anyone with a brain cell can call that a try. Now I need to look at the rule book, because people seem to be saying it is an entirely visual thing and no common sense or intelligence or working out should come in to play. Maybe change 'conclusive proof' to 'It must be clear enough so a 4 year old can call it'. A court of law does not rely solely on visuals. Whilst the video review should not be a complicated thing, the Video Ref must understand the most basic laws of physics shouldn't he? What a cop out the current system is. And ignoring that, why is everyone saying it was the right call because he went with the ref's on-field decision... when the ref makes the wrong call on the field, two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: The "ref" : Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:51 am  

Never forget as a kid being in the scoreboard corner night match again Hull KR, injury time & Alex Murphy claimed he touched the ball from the kick right on the flag, no doubts Eric Clay gave it, Hull fans getting ready to leave in joy shouted out never a try ref, Murph replied "read it in the paper tomorrow, it will say TRY"

When you use video depending on speed you see different things, the Lineham try both Thaler & the touch judge had no doubt, people complain when everything is sent to the video referee. The Saints try, Thaler felt it was not a try, and it was up to Cobb to see if the ball was touched down on the line Without Doubt, it was shown many times and I didn't think it showed clearly Without Doubt, do we take away from the referee on the pitch to make a decision? is it left to the video referee completely to make a decision if there is any doubt? I still think Union handle it much more professional then we do all round.

Still feel Wire were the better all round team, Saints still have some weak links, starting off with Owens, Wilkin & Roby are not what they used to be, James has been amazing but there are three hookers better than him. Now we wait & see if the new signings bring what is needed next season, it is about time because recruitment has been poor for a while now compared to many other clubs.