Its a spear tackle if the legs go through the horizontal.... Take a look at it with both eyes....

Having met Adey I can safely say he is definitely old enough.



Mind you, who won the Challenge Cup more recently? Bradford or Wigan?

Ganson does have form for showing the red, though. Not always against us, even. IIRC did he not red card Fletcher for Hull, a bit harshly, when we played them at the KC a few years ago? And we won the game, probably as a result?

And wasn't it him that red-carded Mozza in the first minute of that international a few years ago?

From BBC report:


It's the Steve Ganson show once more.

It wasn't accidental, it was a deliberate swing to make contact with the player. Accidental would be where he didn't intend to make contact. What we have here is he didn't intend to make contact with the head, but the ball/arm, but did hit the head and it goes down as reckless. Textbook example. IMHO of course.

It wasn't an 8 pointer either, as Tomkins was not fouled whilst touching down the ball, that rule only and strictly applies to "the period during which the ball is touched down for a try". Not before, not after. It's a miracle that Tomkins didn't lose it, and still touched down, but you couldn't correctly say he was fouled "whilst touching down", because he wasn't.

So what are O'Loughlin's high shots? Accidental or reckless?

Normal

I just don't understand this rule. It feels as though whatever foul occurs ALWAYS happens either just before or after the ball goes down. To have a foul happen in the split-second that ball touches ground might happen once every few hundred years surely?

I reckon on April 1st 1895 they slung that rule into the book and completely forgot about it.

You called it an act of assualt. Does that mean tackling someone is affray with intent?

The spear was reckless and life threatening so where's the sending off?

In fact when Tomkins booted Morris in the WCC that was dirty and intentional - so what there? Life ban?



I wanted to single this bit out. Read it back to yourself.

Unless what you actually meant to write was...



Love to see what a precedent that would set.

It was either worded that way, or else left that way, in the 2004 revision. I agree, it's a barking definition, but half the rules need a brains trust to decipher, it's just one more that needs total re-write.

Can someone also please explain one thing to me:

Towards the end of second half Wigan knocked the ball on, then went through and touched down. Ganson went to video ref and it was not given.
However verdict was scrum attack - how was this possible?

One of our lot had touched the ball in flight so was the first knock on.

So under normal operating conditions the ref awards the try. Warns the player and then said player get's mentioned on the RFL's website on the Monday. RFL then send a letter to player's house advising him towards his future conduct. The RFL have set the precedent with this. Remember Webb on Elima at Odsal?

Only it's on TV and a man who's character has been brought into question (not charged with anything but I can say he was accused of being out late and drinking the night before an important match without any legal trouble because a lady did do that and it was in the papers) has made a different decision to what we have seen on other occasions.

Yes he did and you could see that on the first replay. Bulls player knocks on then pie eater knocks on. So why we have to sit through another 10 minutes of replays and checking whether the player grounded the ball before or after the line is beyond me. It summed up the standard of officiating today.

I've been saying for ages that someone would end up chinning Sam, but you have to hand it to Raynor, managing to deliberately punch him in the chops whilst Sam was running at full pelt and Raynor was closing from an angle with only a split second to make sure he hit him on the chin whilst disguising it as a poorly timed attempt to knock the ball out - that's devious that. Ban him for life or send him back to prison at least I say - he's obviously a menace and shouldn't be trusted around the likes of those sweet little Tomkins boys - angels the both of them.

In a nutshell.

Webb on Elima is a very good comparasion. Oh how different the outcomes though.

Looks as though Tomkins has a bit of a glass jaw, wasn't a massive hit.

I think what I'd be wanting to say has been said plenty of times on the thread already.

Great effort by the guys, right the way through the 17 there were massive performances. Certainly for around half of the team that was their best game of the season so far.

Really pleased to see the Briggs rammed the words of some of the people on this forum back down their throats with an excellent performance, especially on attack. Yes, he needs work on his defensive technique but we hear that Mick Potter has already identified this and is working on it.

Thought Whitehead put in huge shift. He was basically covering the wing and centre territory in the second half. And in the first half he's been nipping back into the pack to help out. Reminded me of Paul Medley in his pomp.

The big test now will be whether we can take this form into next week. We simply have to. It will all have been for naught, if we end up putting in another abject performance against Salford.

Absolutely agree. Thought he was immense. He did the work of two players in the second half, nothing got through him and when they were all pretty much out on their feet with five to go, was still taking it up as if it was the first five mins. And he was playing out of position. Some performance.

Good solid effort today, we managed to do the basics for most of the game. Still a lot of work to do, especially defending out wide.

Good to see the halves working well together and surely will get better the more they play together. Pleased for Briggs because I rate him and his kicking game is good.

Add in the missing players and the commitment from today and we'll be ok. We need to back up and perform next week.

It's not often I disagree with Kingmonkey.

And today won't be one of those times either.

Spot on.

Is that because he's really Stuart Duffy?



I agree too, thought Jefferies and Briggs made a nice combination, good to see the ball being moved from side to side. I also think that combination will make more of Royston's support play and both Whitehead and Platt played similar roles in covering for the man down. All in all lots of positives, although still plenty of unforced errors that cost us field position, cut those out and if we can stay fit and build some confidence from now on then we might end the season with some pride.

Anyone know the attendance?

What an amazing thing...