wire2004 wrote:
It's OK dita. I'll bite on this one.
1st one. Wigan 2nd try. No control over the grounding.
2nd one. Warrington 1st no try. Explain how Vaughan touched the ball when the ball went back. Either Vaughan tipped the ball back. Or the Wigan player touched the ball forward. Both would be play on and a try. The ball was travelling backwards. In all replays.
3rd one. Words fail me on that last no try. I don't even know what was wrong with it.
There's 3.
1) It's control because the ball never leaves his hand. It's been the rule for over a decade. Do catch up. If that had been a Warrington "no try" you'd have been whining about "corruption".
2) The ball went "back" because Vaughan knocks it on to Marshall. It doesn't go back, it goes forward off Marshall but the initial knock on was by Vaughan.
3) The ball is lost and ends up under his body. Unlike the Wigan one (which ironically you're moaning about) the connection between hand and ball is lost. However, had it gone up as a try, I'm sure it would have been given. Those decisions happen nearly every game. It's a consequence of the on field try/no try which I agree should be abandoned.
One other point (not from your post): All those moaning about how long Wigan were allowed in the tackle clearly aren't familiar with the rules. Listen to the match commentary and you can clearly hear the referee calling "surrender" on practically every Warrington set. That's a consequence of Wigan's dominant defence. Warrington got the same consideration on the few times they were dominant. Don't complain if your team is dominated. Let's leave that to Saints fans hey?
Edit: Apologies. Just seen these points have been covered. Time at the ruck is still relevant though.