Possibly , and that might have made it funny as well

just for you Starbug.

This from GH

"The Wigan club is justifiably a proud club, with a great tradition, and a club which above all values its reputation for right and fair dealing in everything it does."

"For these reasons I shall be inviting the Wigan Warriors to do the right thing again now, for the benefit of their own reputation certainly, but also for the good of the great game of rugby league, to voluntarily hand over to Leeds Rhinos what is, as the whole game now acknowledges, rightfully ours - the two points so cruelly taken from us by Mr Ganson's failure to act. Also black people are lazy"

No, more likely a try that results from an unintended drop kick is fine, a goal which results from an unintended drop kick is also fine. Mr Ganson made a mistake. Life goes on.

Nope , still not got a clue what you're on about

Except he knocked on before he completed this imaginary drop goal attempt

Aaah, here comes the deliberate confusion, the tactic of the stranded starbug.

A drop kick and a drop goal attempt are not the same thing. Mr Cummings has clarified this for those who despite moaning day in day out regarding minor policies of the RFL and having spent years involved in the game, never bothered to learn the rules. Which is mostly Steve Ganson and you.

So was it as was suggested a reference to something the Bradford Chairman once said ?

Besides the outdated racial stereotype (which was for your benefit), yes.

Mr Cummins wasn't the video ref , and his opinions are no more valid than anybody elses , it was a knock on , not an imaginary drop kick attempt

At last we get an answer , either way it wasn't funny

He is the controller of referees (or match officials director), his opinions are quite a lot more valid than 'anybody elses', he reviews their performance and it is he who judges whether a referee has interpreted the rules correctly.

He, as the arbiter of these things, as part of his job, has informed us, to the no great surprise of anyone but those who dont know the rules, that dropping the ball and kicking it, as per the definition of a drop kick, is shockingly, a drop kick. A perfectly legal aspect of the game and those who thought a drop kick could only be attempted as part of a drop goal, for reasons yet to be understood, had completely invented a rule which doesnt, and has never, appeared in the rules of the game.

We had an answer at the top of the page, before you started doing your confused Grandpa Simpson routine.

But it contained an outdated racial stereotype, you said these were funny?

The only persons relevant to any games are the ones charged with making the decisions at that game , Mr Cummins could point out hundreds of infringements at every match played that he might consider punishable , but the relevant officials see as ok , Mr Cummins similarly no doubt made thousands of decisions that he might now consider differently

It was a knock on , then he kicked the ball , it wasn't an attempt at a drop kick

No , we had somebody guessing it was what you meant , not the same as from the horses mouth so to speak

No , I said sometimes some of these can be funny , yours wasn't , its all about the timing

Thats poor, even by your standards.

Typical, lazy black people, cant even get the timing right in a joke about how it isnt funny to stereotype people. Probably all sat around eating water melons and fried chicken.

Don't give up your day job

No, referees can be wrong. Their judgement can be wrong, and their interpretation can be wrong. You cant have got to 105 or however old you are and be only now discovering that the rules of our game are actual, tangible, and real, not some ethereal, abstract emotion of a referee.

That's nice. As usual irrelevant, but nice all the same.

he shaped to kick, dropped the ball, then kicked it, this is a drop kick. This is how a drop kick is defined in the rules of the game. It is what happened. I know it might upset you because it seems you picked the losing side yet again, but its true.

At least I have a job, unlike <whatever race we are stereotyping today> they are rubbish.

Quite.

Please god let that be the end of the matter.

In your opinion, however the referees "leader" sees it different, who I would suggest is more "savvy" on this issue.

Although this is the same referee that allowed a goal that didn't go between the posts, and employs James Child every week!

He is the leader of the referees, yes. And that gives him a lot more credibility than you or I, I agree. But that doesn't mean he's 100% right. He didn't write all the rules, did he? And all leaders can be wrong from time to time. There are a lot of experienced referees that would completely disagree with him on this one (I haven't seen him quoted saying this yet anyway, by the way).

Guess it all comes down to that word "interpretation".

In my interpretation, he knocks the ball on, then kicks it. He hasn't gone for a drop kick (he didn't drop it to the floor intentionally, he mistimed his kick). Therefore knock on. It's the same as looking at the difference between someone knocking the ball down intentionally for a charge down (not a knock on) and someone sticking a hand out and the ball hitting it (a knock on). The latter could be claimed as a charge down "technically", but it isn't.

Love the way a few internet know it alls think they know more about the rules of the game than the person responsible for monitoring how the laws of the game are applied



you gotta love the internet.

How true

Except it doesnt. The interpretation of the rules comes from him, it doesnt come down to the individual referee. He will tell the referees what constitutes a drop kick, a tackle, laying on, touching the ball down etc etc etc and it is the referees job to implement those interpretations on the field of play. Therefore it is very obvious that a referees implementation of those interpretations can and will be wrong. Thats why we have a Match Officials director and match commissioners, to check the referees are implementing the agreed upon interpretations correctly. In this case Ganson didnt.

That maybe how you wish the rules to be, it might even be how you thought the rules were. We know however that you are wrong. We know this because the man who interprets how referees implement the rules has told us that this implementation would be an incorrect interpretation.

Similarly he has told us that the correct implementation would have been to award a try as per his interpretation of the rules which is the only interpretation of the rules which actually counts in whether or not a referee's implementation of the rules was correct.