It would still be Sam Tomkins fault...

Oh and Wigan are cheats waaa waaa waaa!

This thread is clearly being influenced by Eddie's and Steveo's poor commentating. The try could have been given, but there was no camera angle that suggested the ball could have been grounded, given the positioning of the ball in relation to Tuson's leg. The fact that pair of idiots went on about it for so long was a joke.

Agreed.

It seems it is ok to score a try by knocking the ball out of a player on the ground using your knees and feet into his back.

But if a try is disallowed because there is absolutely no evidence of it touching the ground, and lots of evidence that it's sitting on top of a players legs then the video ref is bent!

That was a loose carry by a poor player. Don't see what you are complaining about.

There was one angle that they only used once that clearly showed the ball grounded between Tusons legs. Im sometimes wondering if the Video refs are sat 16 feet from the screen because I was 3 feet away and that ball was clearly grounded. He then went on to look at the other 2 shots repeatedly that were inconclusive.

The Wigan try was obstruction, period. Professional refs should not be this inconsistent, and im not one to moan at the officials. It would have been harsh but by the letter of the law the collision stops the slide so irrelevant as to whether he could have made a challenge the fact that the gap holds the next man up means it must be deemed as obstruction. Again, professional referees sat in a video box should not be getting this wrong

Evidently, there wasn't.

If there was a camera shot which ''clearly showed the ball grounded'' over the line, then it would have been given a try.

Not everything's a conspiracy.

If the ball was four feet long then maybe it would have been a try.

There was! From the front on angle! A ball cant lose 2 inches of length therefore it must have been grounded. I think your coach agreed

Exactly. There was a camera angle which at least looked like the ball was down. It was a classic case of benefit of the doubt for me and Maguire knew it was a try himself.

The obstruction issue is mighty annoying. They change their mind week in week out on obstruction and it's not a hard rule to call on.

The ball was clearly grounded.

I know this because Tuson has the ability to remove his legs below the knee.

I saw that too. Sky only showed that angle once. It seemed the most conclusive of all. Makes you wonder if they are tyring to find a reason NOT to give a try.

Solomona knows he got the ball down V Wigan at the HJ last year, no benefit of the doubt there either. Is there a common denominator

Alas, unfortunately he dropped it instead of placing it down.

Even Tony Smith said in his post match interview that Solomona was gutted in the dressing room as he felt he's cost the team the win by knocking on - ''Warrington Coach Tony Smith: "He (David Solomona) is distraught in there, saying sorry to all his team-mates. But it's not all down to him and he'll score plenty this year. It's fine-line stuff sometimes, we were within a centimetre or two of snatching the victory.''

Another anti Wigan topic. Absoulutely OBSESSED.

Another Wiganer who thinks everyone else is anti-Wigan.

Classic Goons.

Read the OP.

Already have thanks.

So who's obsessed? MrPhilB? As far as I can see he's started a grand sum total of one thread about Wigan on the front page of this board.

Making things up to suit their own paranoid agenda.

Classic Goons.

Talking rollocks.

Classic whinos

And here's another one.

Are you answering the question I raised to 21-12 on his behalf, or just wading in with childish insults in the lack of anything better to say?

Classic Goons.

It went in between them, the front on angle it appeared that way and enough of the ball wasnt showing in relation to distance to the ground to figure out without a mathematics degree that it had touched the ground, at absolute worst BOTD. I dont understand why they only looked at that angle once.

The solomona one was a knock on, as much as I wished and preyed it wasnt. Close, but no cigar on that one.

If this is the same angle the "journos" are "tweeting" about, the angle clearly shows Tuson's leg under the ball.

The ball is not on the ground. It would be physically impossible, akin to a Rob Burrow effort from (I think) last year.

I think we'd have to see it again, but from memory I was shocked it wasnt given. But this is now all hearsay really without a link to it.

The video ref just gives his OPINION on what he sees. Sometimes his OPINION is different than yours (and mine) but he's the one employed to give his OPINION, so his is the one that counts. You think his OPINION is wrong and he thinks yours (and sometimes mine) is. I've watched loads of games in the pub with neutral fans and sometimes OPINION is divided 50/50 on whether a try should be given. Having a video ref doesn't give certainty; it just gives another person a chance to look at things with the benefit of replays. He still then has to give an OPINION on what he sees.
The whole concept of 'Benefit of the Doubt' is not helpful in my view when it comes to deciding if a try should be awarded. Simply because it seems to mean different things to different people. For example, it would seem some people's view is that if you can't be 'sure the ball didn't hit the ground' a try should be awarded on the basis of 'benefit of the doubt'. Other people have said to me 'benefit of the doubt' only comes into it if it's a 50/50 call. In other words, if the video ref thinks the chances are that the ball PROBABLY wasn't grounded (say a 70/30 chance against) then no try should be awarded. A couple of years ago in a televised game, the video ref awarded a try to Featherstone's Iestyn Harris because he couldn't see the ball as Harris reached the line surrounded by tacklers. Given Harris's body position, I reckon the chances of Harris having grounded the ball were about 99/1 against (and maybe the video ref did too?!) but he gave the try, presumably because he couldn't be 'sure' the ball wasn't grounded. Was he correct?
Why don't we just say the video ref will give his best judgement based on the evidence before him using his knowledge and experience of watching/reffing/playing rugby league. That's all we ask the on-field ref to do and it's all we can expect of the vid ref. And if it's an absolute 50/50 call in his OPINION (which should be a real rarity) then he'll just have to award the try (personally I'd prefer the defence to be rewarded with a 'no try' actually), or maybe he should hand it back to the on-field ref to give whatever decision he would have given had there been no vid ref there. At no point do I want to see the words 'Benefit Of The Doubt' displayed on the big screen because it's too woolly a concept.

Should have been a penalty to Wigan. Only five Cas men in scrum.
Nevermind, justiced prevailed anyway.

Cheats.

The image is on Twitter. Surprised it isn't on here already.