Courtesy of 'This is Hull' www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... llery.html I'll say no more other than look at pic nos 24 and 38

Courtesy of 'This is Hull' www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... llery.html I'll say no more other than look at pic nos 24 and 38

Quote ="Wight Pie"Courtesy of 'This is Hull' www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... llery.html I'll say no more other than look at pic nos 24 and 38'" mmm, pretty self evident from those pics.

Quote ="Wight Pie"Courtesy of 'This is Hull' www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... llery.html I'll say no more other than look at pic nos 24 and 38'" mmm, pretty self evident from those pics.

yep definately wasnt a try, pic 38 proves it! To be fair to Ganson he couldnt have seen it but the guy who stands behind the try line and has nothing to do all match except give those decisions should have got it right, he was right infront of it.

It was obvious that it wasn't a try even when sat in the middle of the East stand. It's over and done with now and at least we got the win, however it must go down as the worst call of the season so far.

The in goal judge should not have missed that! It looked almost certain hed bounced it from the stand, then looked even worse on the video highlights and those 2 pics have proved it!

Although this incident didnt have any baring on the overall result surely the RFL have to look at incidences like these and realise they need to put their hand in their pockets and implement some sort of video ref system at every game. Yes it would be expensive but frankly its pretty embarrassing and shocking that the game is refereed differently whether its televised or not.

On the subject, both of Charnley's tries were from forward passes.

Pictures 67 and 76 tell a story, apparantley legal tackles on Whinging, crying, playacting Sam Tomkins

They weren't. One of them may have been. Passes are judged by the position of the hands and the flight of the ball relative to the two players. O'Loughlin is ahead of Charnley when Charnley receives the ball, so O'Loughlin can't have thrown the ball forward otherwise Charnley would never have caught up with it. The fact that O'Loughlin is running means the ball will travel forwards as well as sideways when leaving the hands of a moving player.

Prove it

Great argument. The difference is I'm not denying Westerman try was debatable at best.

They were both world class passes from O'Loughlin (which ALWAYS get called forward by the opposition fans, ALWAYS. even though they are not. put it this way, if westerman or washbrook had made those passes you lot would be creaming yourselves)

A typical intelligent response. Why did I expect anything else! Even one of your own fans has admitted at least one was.

Well to be honest at the time I didnt think either was, and its impossible to tell from the replays anyway so what do you expect me to say?

I shouted straightaway that he'd bounced the ball over the line and the video pictures prove this.

There was also for me a big doubt over the 2nd try. Did Briscoe get the ball down beofre any part of his body or the the ball touched the white dead in goal line? Tommy certainly claimed it was no try. The problem seemed to be there was a lot of sand around the line and it didn't look very distinct. ganson blew for both tries very quickly - it does make you wonder what use these in goal judges and even touch judges are.

I'm certain if there had been a video ref at least one of the tries would have been disallowed. Having said that, both of Lockers's passes to Charnley were marginally forward ( Steveo/Eddie would have been arguing about the momentum rule!)

It doesn't surprise me that Ganson immediately gave the 2 Hull tries - he seemed desperate to get them some form of result, hence his reluctance to clamp down on the persistent foul play of a couple of Hull players. He even tried to get them a draw at the end. What was the final penalty for? From Ganson's actions it seemed as though there had been some form of obstruction or a Hull player was taken out/pushed off the ball. It must be really hurting this Saints member that they are struggling so much....!

The bottom line is through Ganson's inept handling of a series of incidents a couple of Wigan's better players may miss some vital games. If he'd sinbinned when he should have done, neither Sam nor Joel would have done what they did. Similarites with Huddersfield last year when Fielden ended up being banned for defending himself aginst the blatant foul play of Mason and co.

Fair enough, Westermans was a stone waller aswell.

oh so it definitely was then, seeing as one of our fans admitted it.

you lost, you're not the best team in Hull, good luck trying to make the top 8

Who admitted that one of O'Loughlin's passes for a try was forward?

Try ? more like a slam dunk ... i was at top of the south and saw him drop it.

Indeed. Typical "Mister Magoo" RFL officials.

Most Touchjudges and In Goal Ref's these days are about as much use as a button on a sock.

Momentum rule

I agree: there was definitely a lot of forward momentum on the ball on both those passes to Charnley. Similar to the forward momentum the ball had after Tommy stripped it out of Westerman's hands before he claimed a touch down.
Briscoe's looked ok, but I would love to see how close he was to the line.

Things like this happen in every game. Some go for you, some don't, but Ganson didn't have his best game. If he'd dealt with the poor discipline earlier, we wouldn't have to go to Hudds with another two players out.

At the end of the day, whether Wigan scored from forward passes or not, is debatable. They didn't look forward to me, but may have done from elsewhere. Either way, it's irrelevant. Angle of vision can be so important when it comes to forward passing that even the video referee isn't deemed reliable. We've all seen them called, and then from a different position they look perfectly okay. If the ref or touchjudge doesn't give it at the time, that's the end of the matter, and no amount of arguing will change it.

By contrast, those pictures show that Westerman's try was clearly a knock-on. Clearly. They've PROVED it.

Hull were even less effective against an undercooked Wigan side than I thought. No wonder Richard Agar's s******g bicks.