That applies to catching the ball on the full, this wasnt the case with Whiting

Ball kicked thru and bounced in play, Whiting was trying to play on but stepped in touch, head and feed Saints.

i thought he caught the ball and then stood on the touch line

my biggest gripe with him was getting in the way of the defence for roby's try, plus the last incident that led to the penalty to tie the game was a 50 50 ball, there to be won

got to say as a hull fan jon wilkin was outstanding today, kicking and organising his patched up team

I thought this until Foster was attempting to take the ball by knocking it forward presumably into his other hand, when it touched the Hull player it is classed as a knock on by Foster isnt it?

Or am i going mad?

The tackle in the air is just like what Stevo and Eddie kept bleating on about today, interpretation.

I agree Washbrook was going for the ball but he did also take out Ashe in the air.

That was rather funny but there was no way O'Meley was getting near Roby there. He didn't see it coming and was never in a position to get near to Roby whether Ganson ran the interference pattern or not.

I agree with you though I'm not sure a referee should be moving through a defensive line so close to the play, he should have made an effort to get out of the way.

Whether or not Ganson was biased today is irrelevant. When referees get the big calls wrong and they favour their home town team it brings a lot of questions about which are avoidable.

I think we should be trying wherever possible to keep to neutral referees. That way their motives are less likely to be brought into question. I think Ganson cost Hull FC today with a few strange calls and a very daft penalty at the end. I don't think he is biased, but I'm sure there are a few who do not share the opinion right now and it feels proper that we try to be as unbiased as possible.

I freely admit that whilst I would not be a suitable referee, if I were I could not see myself being neutral for a game involving a widnes team against one from out of town.

Hulls last try looked forward!!

I don't know where this idea has come from but it is clearly not true. Certainly in the dead in goal situation players were making the ball dead not on the full to get a tap restart. Maybe it is just that you don't see it happen often as generally there is no advantage to making the ball dead after it has bounced as opposed to doing it on the full - Whiting didn't do it on purpose.



Nah, I had a close look on the replays and he definitely had both feet on the touch line before he caught the ball. Had he caught it then stepped into touch then the decision to give Saints the head and feed would have been correct.

And there I was thinking that 2 teams drew because neither was good enough on their own to score more points than the opposition.

Oh those missed tackles, those dropped balls, those mistimed passes, those knock ons, those not passing to a man in open space etc., etc., and it was Mr Ganson that caused them them all eh.

Talented fellow that can do the job of 34 other people.

Then thank god you are not.

That's so sharp. With wit like that you could slice through the edge of a needle.

I [idemand[/i you up the quality of your trolling, sir. This poor rubbish you are serving would not be out of place on a Justin Bieber forum.

Either do it properly or sod off.

It wasn't

Er, wasn't Mr Ganson's call. That one went to the video referee

Again a video referee decision, how can you blame Mr Ganson for that

After seeing a lot of replays. In real time I thought it was a penalty and I bet most referee's would have given it.

You need a rule book mate, I'll get you the picture version if you like.

Do you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, match officials make mistakes in the same way players do? Or that those mistakes should be open to the same level of comment and scrutiny that players performances are?

Your constant defending of match officials irrespective of level of performance can lead me to only one conclusion - that you are indeed Stuart Cummings.

How can me thanking God that you are not a referee after you said [u"I freely admit that whilst I would not be a suitable referee, if I were I could not see myself being neutral for a game involving a widnes team against one from out of town"[/u possibly be 'trolling'????

Reading thru this thread you're spot on.

I'm a Saints fan but it was a wrong call from the TJ/Referee and proved costly for Hull. Saints scored from the scrum.

Imagine Whiting caught the ball 5 metres over the touchline. There wouldn't even be a debate about it as everyone would know he was in touch when he caught the ball.

Standing on the white line is exactly the same as the line is deemed touch. Should have been head and feed to Hull.

Correct.

The annoying thing about this is that its understandable for people on here not to understand the Laws but when you get the likes of Paul Cullen on Boots N All last night, highlighting it as a Hull error, then theres not much hope.

That rule only applies on the full. Meli's kick bounced.

And as for Ganson obstructing O'Meley....seems the prop was rather quick out of the scrum, considering props are pretty binded in there.

As I was saying -its understandable people here not knowing the Laws, but full time professional coaches/managers?

Whether he caught it on the full or not makes no difference.

So a player kicks the ball towards touch; it bounces before leaving the field of play, whereon a player, stood in touch over near the boards, catches it. What's the call?

I've just spent too long looking for the rules regarding the Whiting decision. The call by the touch judge and Ganson WAS CORRECT. I wasn't sure myself at first which is why I looked.

If the player catches the ball in touch after the ball has already bounced in the field of play then the head and feed goes to the kicking team.

However, If the ball does not bounce in the field of play and is caught in touch then the head and feed will go to the receiving team.

Then its just kicked out and the other team get it via a scrum where it exited the field of play. Said player has no bearing.

Watch a 40/20 attempt, one the FB/winger is near to. They attempt to bat the ball back in play, or grab it, before it crosses the line, being careful to avoid stepping on the line while touching the ball. Whats being suggested on here is that he can step out, then just grab the ball, that nullifies any 40/20 and his team get the ball.

So what's the difference between being stood in touch (my example) and stood on the touch line (Whiting)?


I don't see how that is being suggested. It wouldn't nullify the 40-20.

No difference, the rule I posted above applies.