Sure this link is allowed as it is on the BBC website news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 509140.stm Two things about this incident.......... 1/ What did joel say to ganson after the incident when he responds with ' you speak like that again..' and then tries to send him away from checking his brother (which was a stupid move from ganson imo!) 2/ After the try is given note that ganson points to the sticks to indicate that we have elected to take a goal as if a penalty had been given - it therefore seems an 8 point try was awarded so why didnt we kick at goal a second time?!? Anyone any ideas?

Sure this link is allowed as it is on the BBC website news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 509140.stm Two things about this incident.......... 1/ What did joel say to ganson after the incident when he responds with ' you speak like that again..' and then tries to send him away from checking his brother (which was a stupid move from ganson imo!) 2/ After the try is given note that ganson points to the sticks to indicate that we have elected to take a goal as if a penalty had been given - it therefore seems an 8 point try was awarded so why didnt we kick at goal a second time?!? Anyone any ideas?

probably asking ganson what the eff he was going to do about his brother being cleaned out!

and im sure they ruled that because the try had been given it was sufficient enough with the sending off aswell; not to sure, i may be wrong.

I noticed that, jobsworth Ganson was more exited about being given an opportunity to have a go at J.Tomkins, than any thoughts about the welfare of S.Tomkins.

After the try is given he points to the sticks to indicate an attempt at goal for the penalty though which is what completely confusses me, and no doubt did paat at the time as he seemed to look back at the ref after the kick to say do i not get another?!

Re: ganson on the joel tomkins incident - would like to know what he said purely as to whether it warrented gansons response - for me it appeared ganson just wanted to make sure he was the main talking point of the incident and upstage everything at all costs as usual by mouthing off to Joel who seemed to only be showing concern for his brother - yet id like to know wat was said just incase joel was mouthing off and ganson was justified.

At the risk of being out of step, I think Ganson handled the situation well.

He didn't see what happened, but clearly received an immediate message re. foul play. He then did his best to take charge of ther situation to try to establish what had happened.

By sending Joel away and advising him to mind his language, he may well have saved Joel from getting a card as well. We all remember what happened a few weeks ago when Joel was brought straight back into the action after a nasty foul. The term 'hot-headed' doesn't really cover it.

I thought it was weird at the time but then decided that it all happened so quickly that maybe Ganson didn't realise how badly Sam had been hurt, Joel was obviously going balistic cos it looked like the ref wasn't concerned about his brother but then Ganson said something like I understand that but shouting at me won't help (or words to that effect)

Why we didn't get the penalty as well doesn't make any sense but then again neither does Mick Potter's attitude that he seemed to think Raynor didn't do anything wrong and was merely trying to stop a try being scored



There was also a lot being made of Bradford only having 12 men but they all conveniently forgot that we were a man down as well.

Just glad we won but it wasn't a great game by any means

Mick Potter's response makes perfect sense if you look at it from his perspective.

His team is crap and he needs to find a reason, yet again, why it isn't his fault. Raynor's sending-off presents another golden opportunity to pass the blame to someone else.

Potter is a phoney of the first order.

I completely agree, Ganson dealt with it very appropriately. Do people really think that he was harsh towards Joel? He came storming up to Ganson and probably swore at him and Ganson responded in the correct manner, warning Joel but not overreacting, asking O'Loughlin to take him away. Once things had calmed he listened to Joel and said "I understand, but you're not helping the situation" and that was the end of it. That's exactly how he should have dealt with it.

Watch the incident again if you think Ganson didnt see it, he couldnt be any closer to it!

Joel did apologise after it though, and Ganson did accept and said he understood his frustration.

I think Ganson was fair to Joel as well. Not sure what Joel said but if you let players go down the route of abusing refs then we turn into Soccer, which is a joke in comparison.

You can say what you like about Ganson but he isn't afraid to take his time, seek all the advice he needs (from the video ref when it's available) and then take action if necessary. I think he handled it well. I'm still confused about Lima's sin bin but he had warned Wigan and if anyone was to blame their it was the touch judge, but although tv replays were inconclusive, it was right in front of him.

As for the 8 point try I went into the rule in my match report which on the RFL website reads....



As I wrote - If that is not "fouling an opponent who is touching down for a try", what is? Some are saying that 8 pointers can only be awarded if the foul occurs after the try is scored but thats not actually what is stated above?

It was also suggested to me that giving a red card without a penalty being award is an incorrect thing to do?

If they did get it wrong then surely you can't just blame Ganson, in fact I'd suggest the video referee is more at fault. It could definitely do with a clarification though because it's a rare thing isn't it.

Ganson might be a real pain sometimes, but he is probably the only ref at the moment who will show the red card when necessary. The others would have just put it on report.

at the time i watched the replay on the big screen.........watched ganson take his time...........and knew it was going to be red..............because Gansons the only ref in superleague with the balls to get the red card out.

I thought this earlier, then watched the Ablett on Sam Tomkins hit again and realised Ganson was the ref that day too

I thought it was an awful thing to see and thought he was really hurt, do u think there will be any come back on Sam for him admitting he was planking at the time.

So that's a no then

Well seeing as he hasn't 'admitted' he was planking. He has JOKED that he was. I think it's pretty obvious even to the dumbest person on the planet that he is briefly out cold.

Lol ok was just a question I personally thought he was out cold and really felt for him hate him like him it's not nice to see a player on the ground like that, I didn't see the other thread on here for planking lol, so u think hel be back for Monday with kr, I think he needs at least two weeks rest

Depends if he's allowed to play.

I think the only positive that can be seen from this is that on any other week I think Joel would have gone and taken a swing at Raynor for that and I'm glad to see that he, relatively, kept his cool and only shouted at Ganson who at the time looked like he wasnt in understanding of how bad Sam was and he appears to be telling Ganson that he needs to keep the Bradford players from crowding him in protest. Seeing it again makes me think that these calls that he was going for the ball are rubbish he was miles from the ball and if you watch he lifts his arm up as he goes in.

Also does John Kear try to claim it was hitting the floor that knocked him out and then says it was a "Brave decision" to send him off I missed all that from frustration on Sunday what an idiot he is.

Quote ="gerr'emonside"Sure this link is allowed as it is on the BBC website news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 509140.stm Two things about this incident.......... 1/ What did joel say to ganson after the incident when he responds with ' you speak like that again..' and then tries to send him away from checking his brother (which was a stupid move from ganson imo!) 2/ After the try is given note that ganson points to the sticks to indicate that we have elected to take a goal as if a penalty had been given - it therefore seems an 8 point try was awarded so why didnt we kick at goal a second time?!? Anyone any ideas?'" This is lifted off another thread. Quote ="Pie Eyed"Not bothering to read through 6 pages, but can I just post what I heard from Ganson over his link? He told the VR *NOT* to award the try until Ganson gave the go-ahead, because "the player is still on the ground". At that time, he was trying to sort out the fact that "His brother is trying to fight everyone, including me." However, the VR *DID* award the try, so Ganson went with it. From everything that was said at the time, plus what was said in the ref's changing room at half-time, I firmly believe that Ganson *wanted* to give a penalty try and would have instructed the VR to do so, had he been given the chance. It was the fact that the VR jumped the gun by hitting the button so early that robbed us of the extra 2 points.'" I assume he means Ganson wanted to award an 8 point try. I thought Ganson handles the situation very well indeed. We all know Joel can be a loose cannon, particularly where his brothers welfare is concerened, so having a word with him and sending him away from the situation was the right thing to do. It's not Joel's job to check on his brother. What would have happened if Joel had checked on Sam and turned him over? If Sam had a neck injury, this action would have worsened the situation. Leave the tending to injured to the professionals, not his brother who is running on adrenalin and spoiling for a fight. Ganson did everything right.

Quote ="gerr'emonside"Sure this link is allowed as it is on the BBC website news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 509140.stm Two things about this incident.......... 1/ What did joel say to ganson after the incident when he responds with ' you speak like that again..' and then tries to send him away from checking his brother (which was a stupid move from ganson imo!) 2/ After the try is given note that ganson points to the sticks to indicate that we have elected to take a goal as if a penalty had been given - it therefore seems an 8 point try was awarded so why didnt we kick at goal a second time?!? Anyone any ideas?'" This is lifted off another thread. Quote ="Pie Eyed"Not bothering to read through 6 pages, but can I just post what I heard from Ganson over his link? He told the VR *NOT* to award the try until Ganson gave the go-ahead, because "the player is still on the ground". At that time, he was trying to sort out the fact that "His brother is trying to fight everyone, including me." However, the VR *DID* award the try, so Ganson went with it. From everything that was said at the time, plus what was said in the ref's changing room at half-time, I firmly believe that Ganson *wanted* to give a penalty try and would have instructed the VR to do so, had he been given the chance. It was the fact that the VR jumped the gun by hitting the button so early that robbed us of the extra 2 points.'" I assume he means Ganson wanted to award an 8 point try. I thought Ganson handles the situation very well indeed. We all know Joel can be a loose cannon, particularly where his brothers welfare is concerened, so having a word with him and sending him away from the situation was the right thing to do. It's not Joel's job to check on his brother. What would have happened if Joel had checked on Sam and turned him over? If Sam had a neck injury, this action would have worsened the situation. Leave the tending to injured to the professionals, not his brother who is running on adrenalin and spoiling for a fight. Ganson did everything right.

I've posted on another thread that I agree with this.

Ganson may well have shown leniency sending Joel away rather than yellow-carding him.

But I thought he handled the situation well. He calmed things down and when he was in full possession of the facts, he sent the offender off without any hesitation.

Why are people worried about Ganson apparently not being worried about Sam's health. It's not his job, his job is to police the game which he was doing and defusing a situation that could have ended up with a group of players fighting around Sam.

What medical skills does Ganson have that would have made him getting involved with Sam's injury a better option than the medical staff who where there in seconds?

The priotity in that situation is to get EVERYONE away from the prone player team mates included so the medical team can deal with it without the worry that a brawl may engulf them and to my mind thats what Ganson tried to do.By running to the ref and having a go ( and i understand why he did it ) Joel is then without realising it giving reason for Bradford players to come over and have a go at him.

It was a red card offence if ever there was one imo,and the card was rightly produced after the medical staff sorted the situation.