To say it was a shocking decision you don't sound so sure.

Did you actually see the incident?

Yes mate I did, and from what I saw it didn't look like even grounded the ball, whether it was in the field of play or in touch, hodgson didn't to me look like he thought it was a try by his lack of appeal/celebration!

IMO of course I just can't see how he could give it as a try, that's why I think it was a shocking call!

What your view era?

I was on the opposite side of the pitch but Hall said after that the in goal judge gave it.

It was a poor call by whoever gave it, but at the end of day it was given, and atleast it didn't cost us!

Is there a protocol for refs to follow when the officials are undecided ? e.g. if the touch judge says no try, the in goal says try and the ref didn't have a decent view ? Or does he just go with whoever he thinks had the best view ?

at half time my lass felt a little unwell so we moved from the southstand to the western terrace as there was space for her to sit down so I was approx 5 yards from the try in question and hodgeson touched it but on the line. the lines man was about the same distance and waved for 20 meter restart the in goal touch was a good 20 yards away and with at least 2 players blocking his sight? I can only assume ben has more respect for the in goal officail than the linesman.

havnt seen a replay but thought it was a reasonable call on the night, benefit of the doubt to the attack was probably taken into account
no question of a try if it was defended correctly!

Difficult one for the ref. You have extra eyes on the pitch to take advice from. If the in-goal judge calls it a try then you have to take his advice (unless you clearly saw different). What you do when there are two conflicting repsorts I don't know, but my guess is that the in-goal judge has "jurisdiction" over these types of decisions relating to in-goal incidents.

Correctomundo!!

Refs always ignore the touchies. They are there to give advice, not to make decisions is what I was told. All this crap you hear in the stands when people "say get your flag up linesman" and the like makes me laugh. They are mic'd up so they are talking all the time.

Come on Harrigan, what do the Laws actual state is the role of the touch judge? They are there to make decisions (as well as give advice) according to the laws and on two very specific things, upon which the ref should accept the decision of the touch judge?

Ok, here what the laws say -

[iThe Referees shall enforce the Laws of the Game and may impose penalties for any deliberate breach of the Laws. He shall be the sole judge on matters of fact except those relating to touch and touch in-goal (see para. 11 below).[/i Interestingly the rules are wrong here because it says paragraph 11... when it is actually paragraph 10!

So they are not the SOLE judge of matters relating to touch or touch in-goal decisions!

[iAccept Touch Judge decision - 10. The Referee shall accept the decision of an official Touch Judge relating to touch and touch in-goal play and to kicks at goal.[/i

As I understand it, this is about the ball going and a player carrying the ball into touch, so the ref is not allowed to overrule the touch judge on these matters, meaning if a touch judge thinks the ball or a player goes into touch and the ref doesn't see or disagrees he has to concede to the touch judge! However, in Friday's situation are there two decisions to be made, the first being did Hodgeson get the ball down BEFORE it then went touch in-goal?

The laws currently don't say anything about in-goal touch judges and what there role is formally in the decision making structure, interestingly!

Let me tell you what I think Mr Thaler will say if questioned about this... he will say that he thought it was a try and so did the in-goal touch judge and as such he was able to overrule the touch judge in this circumstance as it was 2 against 1. However, looking at the Super League show the in-goal touch judge stands his ground (indicating a try) and the touch-judge waves a 25 restart but you can't see what what Mr Thaler does? For me the rules are clear, the touch judge should be believed (irrespective of whether he actually got it wrong of right when viewed back) and it should not have been awarded.

I think if Mr Thaler did not clearly see the try himself he has actually got the technicalities of this decision wrong and the touch judge should have been believed and no try awarded. He doesn't appear to have consulted the touch judge and just believed the in-goal judge over the touch judge... this is against the laws IMO.

Finally, having looked at it a few times it is not a try for me, the touch judge does appear to be spot on and make the right call. Had Mr Thaler obeyed the laws, he should have waved the try away!!!

They all got the decision wrong IMO.

It appeared to be a 'No Try' as far as I could tell from the footage available via the Super League Show coverage. That deals with the in goal judge and the referee but for me the touch judge also made the wrong call in indicating a re-start on the twenty as Smith appeared the last player to touch the ball in the field of play.

I think I would be inclined to agree, in that Smith does appears to just poke/touch the ball out with his foot very close to the line, so drop out call from touch judge should probably have been the call.

However, my point is about the laws and the technicality of the decision making process, the touch judge has the call on this one for me, not Mr Thaler or the in-goal judge, and Mr Thaler should know that as a first grade ref!

I may well be wrong here, but at the game I was sure that the touch judge signalled for a drop out, not a twenty restart. And could not understand why the Huddersfield players were going to line up for the twenty restart. Then totally confused when he gave the try.

Isn't the signal for drop out where he points his flag on the try line?

On the assumption that the referee was presented with a split decision who should he side with officially?

I note that the role and jurisdiction of the in goal judge is not defined in your reference material.

For me I'd say the touch judge should be responsible for any touchline decisions, including touch in-goal leaving the in goal judge as arbiter on dead-ball line decisions.

My interpretation of the rules, as written, is that it is the touch judge (not the ref) is the final arbiter in the circumstance of ANY call relating to touch or touch in-goal. So strictly speaking, if the touch judge disagrees with the ref on a touch or touch in-goal decision the ref should actually concede to the touch judge in this circumstance only.

So, given that currently in-goal judges don't appear to have any formal status in the rules in this area, then yes, he should have gone with the touch judge and not the touch in-goal judge! However, I bet if you ask him now he will say both he and the in-goal judge thought it was a try and therefore it was 2 against 1... even though the rules don't back him up there either!

I'm not sure you're right here. The final call is always the refs, except for conversions, when 2 touch judges overrule the ref.

No idea about the in-goal judges, my course didnt cover them

Flag down for both, but arm up, and pointing to the 20m for tap 20, and arm down pointing between the sticks for a dropout

Err, no it's not, read the laws!

i haven't received mine in the post yet, but I will do.

The final decision is the refs, as the touch judges are only supposed to indicate something if the ref asks. In reality it doesn't work like that though, and the ref should take the TJs view as he is best placed to give that decision.

Well I am pretty sure he didn't point ot the 20, and pointed between the sticks instead, but I am not sure he had his arm up, if that makes a difference.

Either way, he was incorrectly over ruled. And of more point to any debate of who's call it is, the touch judge definately had the best view of all the officials.

According to Thaler:
He had definitely seen it grounded but wasn't sure where.
The touchie said the Midget player didn't ground it at all - in Thaler's opinion [isince he 'knew' this not to be the case [/ithe evidence of the touch judge was therefore unreliable and had to be disregarded .
Therefore: he fell back to the in goal judge who agreed with him that it had been grounded and said it was a try.

There is a certain logic to that - except the in goal judge turned out to be wrong.

C'est la vie, it just made Leeds have to earn the win a little more, which is a good thing in these times of plodding through regular seasons without really trying



Now let there be no more slagging off of our pet referee

This, and as you correctly mention kicks at goal, is the only time he does not have final decision!!!

Now, if you are arguing that Thaler gave the try as he, as the ref, clearly felt he grounded the ball and therefore it was not actual a touch in-goal call then I agree... but his touch judge also disagreed with that!!!

If that is indeed from the 'horses mouth' then surprise, surprise... I told you that is what he would say!



He does know the rules and on reflection he knows he has no choice but to say that, even then he is still on dodgy ground overruling his touch judge in strict accordance with the laws.

Mr Armadillo, you are missing someting,you are right that the TJ rules if the ball has gone out of play and he waved his flag to indicate that

the issue was if the ball was grounded before that, the referee rules on tries and did so as he had the opinion it had been grounded before that (probably with the help of the ingoal judge - i think the term in goal shows what he is there for and what he is there to assist/rule on)

it is common for a TJ to raise the flag to indicate the ball or player are in touch but a preceding incident in the field of play mean the referee awards a decision based on that, its not overruling the TJ in those incidents or this one

No, I am not missing this at all and yours is a very valid argument and I did make it myself already in my other posts.

If he says he clearly saw the ball being grounded BEFORE entering touch in-goal then to be fair he should have just ruled that BUT people are reporting he consulted the in-goal judge before awarding the try and didn't speak to the touch judge at all! MjM reports that he asked the in-goal touch judge for confirmation of the location of the touch-down, not actually whether he agreed with him because he signalled (by standing still) that it was a try in his opinion. As I said, surprise, surprise... that is what I would have said if I was him as well!

The things is, we are getting into detailed technicalities and strict literal definitions of the wordings of the laws. Thaler's mistake IMO was not to actual bring both the touch judge & in-goal judge together, have a chat and then make a ruling.

Of course, it doesn't help that we all seem to agree that the touch judge appears to be right and that Thaler (and the in-goal judge) appear to be wrong.