It's blatantly clear to me why the try was disallowed....can you not see it? Houston interfered with Miller when challenging for the ball....Cobb was in an excellent position to see it....Houston may have had his eye on the ball but at the same time had his left, leading knee 'too high' and in the chest/rib area of Miller and his following right knee clearly strikes Miller on the backside....Now correct me if I'm wrong but on any blade of grass, or any inch on any playing field, if you jump into an opposition player and your knee hits them a) in the chest/rib area....and/or....b) on the backside....I'm pretty sure that's a penalty....or is that allowed now?....I'd love to know why you think it ok to jump into a player with your knees...

Well in front? Really.. Cahill, Leuluai and O'Carroll are all behind the kicker. The one camera angle available on the night (it wasn't a sky game so only the club cameras are present) doesn't show Houston or Marsh in shot when the kick is put up so I'm amazed that Carney who only has access to this one camera angle is so certain? Or could he be doing what he's normally doing and that's a really bad Adrian Durham impression.
Also... Cobb doesn't signal for offside.. he signals for impeding in the air. So even Cobb wasn't aware of the offside?

Ha ha ha ha ha... ace!!









Yeah, he's leathered him with his knees there hasn't he?? Terrific.








He's just outjumped Miller. Nothing more nothing less. And you're absolutely right. Cobb had a brilliant view of the incident which makes it even more galling that he chalked it off.
As for the not being able to challenge with your knees, you do know that a lot of people pull there knees up when they jump and as a result most aerial challenges result in collisions featuring the knee. Miller doesn't protest I notice. Nope, just a look of glumness that a try has been scored.

It's always been allowed if it happens in the challenge, as long as the intent is not to take the player out which no-one would argue is Houston's intent. He's focussed on catching the ball and scoring a try to win the game.

Houston was NOT offside. That is not the only camera...Wakefield have their match highlights on youtube...the kick goes up at 5.58...Hanbury is just over the line when the ball leaves his foot and Houston is at least on the line so no problem there.....there is clearly contact from Houston's knee into Miller though and under the laws of the game...jumping into a player with your knee is a penalty...always has been and always will be...so that there ends the discussion, and Denis Betts is wrong...unless of course he thinks that is within the laws of the game? The same way he thinks his players ill discipline and failure to capitalise on possession and chances against a busted team didn't cost his team the two points...

As a neutral and without any particular like for either team... there is no way that can be classed as "jumping into a player with the knee". Houston went up for the ball legitimately and Miller didn't even bother jumping, that's why Houston got to the ball and Miller didn't.

Oh that settles it then....a Wigan fan ends the debate!

[url=http://s17.photobucket.com/user/upthecats/media/houston.png.html[/url


From Joe Cobb's position what is he seeing there?

Answer: Chris Houston's knee up in the area of Jacob Miller's face, nearly 6ft in the air....if that's not impeding a player I don't know what is?

It is exactly the same camera angle buddy trust me. The only difference seems to be that Sky have zoomed in on the action a little. But you're quite right that Houston is clearly onside so I'm still non the wiser what Carney is talking about. Not that it matters as his opinion counts for nowt.

OMG you were being serious about the knees thing.

Sorry mate. I thought we were having a laugh. Awkward.


I'm sorry mate but there is nothing in that video or the screenshot showing the contact to suggest that Houston has interfered deliberately with Miller. If anything there is a fairly decent argument that Miller is interfering with Houston as he seems to have his arms around him but Miller simply didn't challenge well enough for the ball.
I'm helpfully willing to take any number of screenshots this weekend to show attackers challenging for the ball with their knees tucked up. If contact of the knee against the opposition led to a penalty then there wouldn't be very many tries resulting from kicks at all. Unless we want to instruct them to start jumping like beanpoles. That's one way to go I suppose.

I will check back on Monday on this thread to see all your screenshots of players with their knee over 5ft high in the air challenging for a ball then...

You can't impede a player that is barely making an attempt to catch the ball. Do you know what impede means? If anything Miller is impeding Houston.

I like you...
He's seeing the same thing most people are seeing mate including the RFL I suspect. It's a bad decision that if given correctly wins Widnes the game. That's why he's got the weekend off.
The reason that Houston is up in the air?... it's because he jumped mate. Attacking players do that to try and gain an aerial advantage. The reason Miller is below him is that he hasn't jumped. If they both challenge they might be roughly at the same height. The reason Houston's knees are up like that is due to the fact he's made a running jumps and that's what happens. WE'll see LOADS of it this weekend.
But this idea of yours (and Cobbs) that one player being higher than the other should lead to a penalty. It's interesting. What if the player is just taller?

I can't wait to see all the Wakefield players jumping for kicks with their knees completely straight. Should be a great sight.

Ha ha ha.. give me til Tuesday mate there'll be a fair few of them. And what does 5ft in the air have to do with it? You just said that contact of the knee into the defender is enough to warrant a penalty. A lot of it rests on defending as bad as Millers of course.

Ha ha ha. I know mate. Beanpole jumps from now on only.. and since the dawn of time Rugby League wise too apparently.

I can give you an easy one to start with...Tom Johnstone at home to Salford....about 4 and a half minutes into the sky highlights video....perfect example of how to outjump an opponent to score without having your leading knee at head height...

Oooh you should see the Denny Solomona try against Saints at the weekend!! Amazingly it was given (the try). Even though the saints player decided not to jump! He should have asked for a penalty. I'll stick the image up when I get a mo.

I saw it....maybe if Joe Cobb had seen it he may have given a penalty? That's one of the huge problems of the game....referee's interpret things differently...we see it week in week out both on the field and at the disciplinaries....similar things happening in games with different results.....from Cobb's position and how he was viewing the incident I can certainly see why he gave a penalty and think he was right to do so....

You could argue every week about a decision changing the course of a game....like the Ah Van tackle for instance....how can a tackle that results in a five game ban only receive a yellow card while the two red cards were less serious? If he had got that decision right and shown the red card the course of the game would have been different...

This type of challenge happens loads and is likely to happen every time an attacking player outjumps a defender running into the catch. Sure there's going to be variations. It depends on where the attacker has come from etc. But tries such as these are given all the time. They were when I was playing (scoring and on the receiving end) and I hope they are given for a long time to come.
Also you'll notice the referee in that game has got a game this weekend and Cobb doesn't. Looks like the Rfl are backing him on the sendings off (and I do for the Ah Van one.)
In terms of things that determine a game. Let's say Ah Van goes for a red. Moore could go too of course for running in and retaliating. But even if he stays on the pitch. There is still a lot of time to play in the game (60 mins?). You might win. We might steel ourselves and get the win. There's a lot of the game to be played and a lot of variables that can come into play at that point. When this no try thing happens Widnes should put themselves two tries up on Wakey with very very little of the game to play I.e. Far far fewer variables. It's an almost certain winning try. Surely you understand that? It's probability.

interesting that in the widnes v hull game earlier this season hull had similar claims for a try disallowed which would have put them 0 - 12 up. i know they later got mullered in that game but that could have affected the outcome. seems that what goes around eventually comes around

Similar but not the same? I mean if you've got anything to show that the hull player wasn't impeding the Widnes player then it's obviously relevant. If I remember correctly that was a sky game and the decision was handed upstairs to be looked at. I think I remember the video ref overturning the on field ref who had awarded a try.
**just found it on YouTube. It's disallowed as Marsh is tackled in the air. The Hull player does not make any valid attempt to challenge for the ball and a second player tackles him in the air. So a bit different.

Just out of interest looking at the pics do you think Houston is impeding the Wakey player?

Yes, thought that was odd, Solomona jumped up onto the saints players hip to gain extra height and deflect the player in the process. The saints players were probably at fault for not making a strong enough appeal to check it out.

It's ok, he will eventually get over losing the game and unless we go for the unprecedented action of scrubbing the result and giving Widnes the 2 points, the result stands.
And, as for the fact that "had the try stood, Widnes would have won, we will never know.
I checked the SL website and it still shows Wakefield as the winners of this game.

On a side note
If Sky start to highlight any contentious decisions, we'll have plenty to watch each week.
Regardless of the no try incident, Widnes should have closed the game out, especially when there was only one set to defend so, whether Betts wants to accept the fact (or not), they only have themselves to blame.

Little tip for you kidda..

Those contentious decision videos you're worried about that show tries given were the attacking player has out jumped the defender. They ain't contentious chicken. Them's real tries on a highlights reel.
Peace n Love.
I'll leave you now as I feel I've balanced up a very one sided thread.

It's been a real treat talking with you all.
See you all next time when you're bleating about a decision that's gone against you. I'll be sure to keep in touch.
Good luck with the rest of the season.

I'm just glad that you're finally getting over it, we're still celebrating over here

So you had (in your mind) a try or two dismissed, big deal



Fact is you would've one that game (undeservedly) had Marsh not got himself sent to the bin.

It also doesn't explain the awful and disgusting comments from Widnes fans regarding Ashley Gibson.

So you had a few decisions against you, so did we.m

In the end, Widnes were just an embarrassment from head to toe last Friday.

I mentioned Carney because he doesn't have a dog in the fight and generally talks sense. He only spotted what a couple of mates did on the night that where there, take what you want out of that. You're No. 22 Whitley was the one in front and No.11 Naughton looked a step or two in front of the kicker as well.

As for Cobb not being aware, no he wasn't, so what. How many times do refs give tries then they're chalked off when the video ref sees them because a player's offside. The whole things is more a reply to you declaring 'If that is handed to the video ref then it's certainly given'. That's why I brought the off side's up because it would have been looked at if the video ref was there.

Anyway, time to move on.