Jeez,
refs have bad games all the time. Let's move on from Friday - the ref didn't lose us the game, our poor defence and lack of respect for the ball did (what was Ainscough doing when he tried to kick that ball away?). Those 40/20s were good kicks and if Trent had done them while he was here we'd be calling him God. In my opinion, our disallowed tries were correctly denied - it's time to move on...

Kirke releases the ball before the 20 metre line. It hits the ground after the 20 metre line, therefore it's a knock on as soon as it hits the ground, it doesn't matter which way it bounces after that

Not that I agree with you on the lines, because I dont. But what matters is does Kirke pass the ball in a backwards motion. The answer is Yes.

Where does Kirke end up in relation to the ball?

And by the way.

Take a good look at Ainscoughs try. Look where the pass is made from and where he collects the ball in his hands.

I Didn't say they were 50/50, I said I agreed with the Ainscough one & I Disagreed with the Hock one!
IN MY OPINION! Not Fact, Just Opinion!

PS

I Thought that Peacock's was 50/50, It was given, we get on with it!

Flat on his face behind where the ball lands?????

I thought that Peacocks was 50/50 at the time too. But does not the rules state that if you can not categorically see that a try was notscored legitamittly, that you give benefit of doubt? Therefore try rightfully awarded.

You are still wrong on the Hock one, and you cant admit it. It is not opinion that the ref was correct or wrong, it is FACT. Read the rules and you will see that it was correct, which makes it FACT.

Yes, you dissagreeign is opiniion, but that does not change the fact that the try was rightfully dissallowed.

And watch the Ainscough try again.

Which one???
The one were he was in front of the kicker and it was disallowed??? If So I agree, What more do you want???

No the one given.

You are correct that try's are given that involve some obstruction, and right to query that.

But you are wrong on the context of the one on Friday. The defender did not pick out the wrong man and tackle him. He was prevented quite clearly from making the tackle on the correct attacker because O'Loughlin was stood still in the way. That is an obstruction. Read the rules (which you admit you have not looked at recently) and you will see that if O'Loughlin had have kept on moving through the line, that try would not have been dissallowed. But because he stopped and impeded the defender from effecting a tackle, he was breaking the rules. Therfore in relation to the rules we are back to Fact again.

I have not seen any potential obstruction try awarded that is as clear as that one on Friday.

They did actually. They mentioned that (like most of us saw) the ball was passed backwards by Kirke and knocked towards the Wigan line by the hand of the Wigan player tackling him. Watch and listen again.

I have and they didn't.

What they commented on was that Donald did not knock the ball on.

Watch again and listen.

IF True then that is a Fact Brian Not an Opinion?

Correct

Stevie Wonder would of spotted that

Obviously with the special "Wigan" glasses they hand out. Replay after the conversion - end on - Stevo says "comes off Ainscough's fingers". You clearly see the ball passed backwards and then hit Ainscoughs hand.

Dreary me. Please, don't post any more "observations" if you can't even watch a replay accurately.

You said it pal.

I've got the delayed game on Sky Sports extra (the one that shows the coaches interviews) and there is no replay of the try after the conversion.

If the ball came off Ainscoughs hand why didn't the referee wave his hand to give another six tackles?

So you have bagged me after watching an edited version of the game that doesn't even include all the replay footage? You originally asked why the Sky team made no mention of the ball hitting a Wigan players hand, I pointed out that they did, and then you decide I'm wrong even though you don't have the full televised transmission of the match. Awesome

It does show the replay of the try, but before the conversion. The ball did not IMO touch Ainscoughs hand.

Why did the referee not wipe the tackles clear if Ainscough had played the ball?

Maybe he ruled that the ball hit Ainscough in the process of making the tackle thus making it play on but not back to one?

To the person questioning whether the offside try just after half time would have been given without the VR I'm sure that you hear Smith shout offside when the balls kicked and then went to the VR to make sure he was correct.

The obstruction was correct IMO, O'Loughlin was in no position to receive a pass and was standing in the line with the intention of stopping the defender. I accept that Ablett probably made sure he ran into him to ensure we got the penalty but thats not the point.

If Lockers wasn't on the field would Ablett have made the tackle anyway?

(The answer is no btw

)

Regardless the fact is he shouldn't be prevented from attempting which he was. Leeds got done for a similar one not too long after

Are you serious?

He would have had him tackled with ease. What is it with people not watching the match? get a copy and look at it again. Hock was a yard away the other side of O'Loughlin. O'Loughlin impeded Ablett. As clear an obstruciton as you are likely to see, and had he not been there Ablett would have tackled Hock. Quite simple.

Wrong

I was at the game and I watched it back on sky+ on saturday morning

Lockers stopped about half a yard before your defensive line whilst Hock came steaming through on Lockers' left shoulder through a pretty big gap in your defensive line

Ablett was too slow to cover and realised he wasn't going to make the tackle so did his best to make it look like he had been obstructed and that muppet Bentham took the bait

Even Stevo thought it was a try so it must of been



Question

Why are you even @rsed? If I was a Leeds fan I would just be happy with the 2 points

Juke, have you not realised yet that you're trying to reason with an idiot? Give it up man...life's too short!