They are all wrong. He jumped into Ashe because he got his jump wrong, that's a penalty every time it happens near the try line and very, very rarely does Clarke decry the penalty being given.

I thought Clarke showed a lot of anti Saints bias on the commentary, but that's become a norm since your flirt with relegation a few years back, when his balanced commentary went out of the window and he started calling Wigan 'we' again.

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"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.'" Hope this clarifies it all: www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... uch_ingoal "[iThe ball is in touch when it =#FF4000or 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[/i." Didn't matter that Whitings foot was on the line before or after he caught it. Correct decision by the TJ - scrum to Saints.

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"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.'" Hope this clarifies it all: www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... uch_ingoal "[iThe ball is in touch when it =#FF4000or 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[/i." Didn't matter that Whitings foot was on the line before or after he caught it. Correct decision by the TJ - scrum to Saints.

Love the irony of this thread. The only unacceptable bias on Monday was that shown towards St Helens by a certain Mr 'St Helens' Ganson!

Phil Clarke can be a bit of a w%nker at times, but i think they all do a great job.
its good they dont agree on things and argue, and have a laugh.

must say clarkey stands out as the worse for bias, and he does tend to get on my tits sometimes,
i much prefer carney, and wells does a great job too.
clarkey seems to overemphasize some things going way over the top.
all in all though he doesnt offend me enough that I would want him sacked.

eddie and stevo are always getting slagged off, but who would you have replace them?
They both love the sport, talk passionately about it and I for one would miss either 1 of them if they retired.

Isn't that against the AUP? AGAIN.

Yes, yes, yes we know what you mean. Every single win we've ever had has been crooked. We haven't deserved any of our numerous trophies over the past fifteen years and have only won because of refs and us breaking the rules. How we ever live with ourselves knowing that I don't know but we do. It's the kind of thing we just have to do to win a match. Without favourable breaks or biased refereeing we'd be sitting at the bottom of the Cooperative Championship, if we were lucky.

I admire honesty in a person. Thanks for your admission and confession. For your penance you will now have to admit your great love of Shaun Edwards.



Hopefully I'll get the answer on the Whiting issue tonight.

Read Page 5 of this thread. The rule is there!! You can then apologise for calling it the worst decision of the match.

No, I've just had it confirmed by a professional referee. It should have been head and feed to Hull. The straddle rule only applies to to a rolling/bouncing ball when the player straddles the dead ball line. It does not apply to the touchline.

Therefore it was a wrong decision, and one that "probably" cost Hull the game as Roby scored direct from the scrum and got Saints back into the game.

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

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.

yep, that would be asking for trouble

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)

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.

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.

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.
"=#FF4000The 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.

We're all bored by it. Move on.

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

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

Correct. The ball wasn't in touch until Whiting touched it, therefore making the ball dead. H and F Saints. Correct decision by TJ and Ref. (The real ref I mean not the imaginary one RG refers to)

So if Whiting had caught the ball in the bottom row of the stand it would still have been head and feed to Saints?

now you're being daft and you know it, but yes, concievably if it hadnt touched the ground, it would only be in touch when he caught it, and he was in contact with the ground, thems the rules as i see it

I was just using that exaggeration to make the point.
Meli kicked the ball, it bounced in the field of play to a player who was outside the field of play. Therefore if you read that ruling the ball has gone into touch and has NOT been carried in by Whiting.
He can't carry it out if he's not in the field of play can he? The ball is "dead"

It was just a wrong call, which actually came from the touchjudge, and trust me I did check with a referee.

The ball wasn't out of play until Whiting touched it! What is wrong with you? If he had of jumped and patted the ball back would it have been play on?