Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 9:41 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

No, I've just had it confirmed by a professional referee. It should have been head and feed to Hull.

What sport is the ref professional in? There are only half a dozen or so pro rl refs and I am not sure they know this rule (especially given not one but two of them were involved in the decision, and it was the one running the line gave head to Saints)

Imagine a scenario where a player deliberately leaves the field by standing on the line and touches a kicked ball staying infield (as Whiting did, not deliberately) and by this "rule" winning a scrum and stopping a potential trophy winning try by doing so... I am sure the rule would not last very long if that started, just like the straddling the dead ball line didn't.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 9:43 am  

Chris Saint wrote:

Imagine a scenario where a player deliberately leaves the field by standing on the line and touches a kicked ball staying infield (as Whiting did, not deliberately) and by this "rule" winning a scrum and stopping a potential trophy winning try by doing so... I am sure the rule would not last very long if that started, just like the straddling the dead ball line didn't.

yep, that would be asking for trouble

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 10:45 am  

Sthelens RLFC wrote:

Swings and roundabouts eh? Wigan's american football impressions on Good Friday "probably" cost us the game as well.

Clearly he forgot about the terrible forward passes for 2 of Hull's try's which 'probably' cost us the win too. Forward passes dont count because Wigan do them all the time, so it's just obscure rules random ones that make the difference in games. (unless they go against Saints then they wouldnt have had any effect)

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 10:54 am  

Rogues in "I have a source shocker" lulz.

He likes to think he is in the know, when the reality is, he makes things up and claims hes in the know.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 10:59 am  

I'd like to know who this professional referee is and why he thinks Ganson got the decision wrong when the rules support his call.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 11:06 am  

Its all a figment of his imagination. Do not rise to him.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 11:18 am  

WBFOP wrote:

Its all a figment of his imagination. Do not rise to him.

Are you calling me a liar?

Anyway here's the rule as posted on page 5.
"The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line or any object on or outside the touch line except when a player, tackled in the field of play, steps into touch as he regains his feet in which case he shall play the ball in the field of play."

Whiting was on the line (despite what SaintsFan says) when he caught the ball. Therefore the ball was in touch. It wasn't a 40:20 so it should have been Hulls head and feed.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 11:36 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

<usual ridiculous blather>

We're all bored by it. Move on.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 11:47 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Are you calling me a liar?

Anyway here's the rule as posted on page 5.
"The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line or any object on or outside the touch line except when a player, tackled in the field of play, steps into touch as he regains his feet in which case he shall play the ball in the field of play."

Whiting was on the line (despite what SaintsFan says) when he caught the ball. Therefore the ball was in touch. It wasn't a 40:20 so it should have been Hulls head and feed.

hang on, for mine that means whiting made the ball be technically in touch so, head and fead to Saints, but not a 40:20

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 12:03 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

We're all bored by it. Move on.

You mean you were wrong but as usual won't admit it.