no he wanted to blow his whistle

So your last reply is just biased twaddle then.

Ah i see, to save blowing the whistle for knocks on we'll allow "latitude" and if you only have one foot in touch we can "let it go" and award a try.

We got penalised for being offside and rightly so but perhaps they should have shown "latitude" in that case or just not bother with the rules at all.

yes we agree but flexibility should bend both ways , he allowed no latitude for our restart or for that he allowed no latitude to korky , whilst he allowed McGuire to almost amputate BJs leg whilst the leeds defense reset and let Leeds use a illegal 20m tap.

consistency is the key

If thats how you read it then fair enough

Quote ="Gahan"If thats how you read it then fair enough'" You might not sky+ our games but you seem interested enough in us. Perhaps browsing this forum would be more to your liking viewforum.php?f=26

Quote ="Gahan"If thats how you read it then fair enough'" You might not sky+ our games but you seem interested enough in us. Perhaps browsing this forum would be more to your liking viewforum.php?f=26

Quote ="mwildcats"You might not sky+ our games but you seem interested enough in us. Perhaps browsing this forum would be more to your liking viewforum.php?f=26 '" Yep im a real regular on here I'll leave you to it

Quote ="mwildcats"You might not sky+ our games but you seem interested enough in us. Perhaps browsing this forum would be more to your liking viewforum.php?f=26 '" Yep im a real regular on here I'll leave you to it

You said thats its not an illegal restart IYO when he's cleary in front of the line, then you try to make out we need "latitude" when it suits your agenda.

Biased, yes i read it that way.

looks like this latitude thing may catch on , the giants are showing a little latitude to the pies attack

Gilmours "no try should stand under the Latitude rules" you could argue it was close enough.

After years of reading tosh from Hudds fans we finally have a winner.

now your just being plain silly

Taxi

It does not matter how well you hook a fish, some of them will just wriggle and wriggle to try and get off the hook, hoping you will take pity on them and cut them loose. Be ready for for further excuses though

Note that the 2 Wakey players furthest away from being onside are the ones in whos area the winning try was subsequently scored a few plays later.

leeds fans have piped up on all the other match related posts but not this one. Wonder why that is??? hehe

may by because we could put more up as well

points difference for wakefield leeds games this season
WAKEFIELD 6
leeds -6
Even with a dodgy ref still a converted try better than the "champions"
lets extend the lead next month

Quote ="Gahan"Which Leeds player is in front of the tap?'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... efault.stm try and keep up Lee

Quote ="Gahan"Which Leeds player is in front of the tap?'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... efault.stm try and keep up Lee

Firstly, I am going to take back my original comment on the other thread (well slightly

) and from the photo it is clear that Alibert should have held Leeds up and make them take the tap again. Buderus is in front of the line, quite clearly, it is difficult to tell how central he is on the line due to perspective, but if he was in front then that does not matter anyway.

However, this does raise a couple of issues and I think one that does have an easy cure.

When I posted my comments I had only seen the match once (live on Sky) and I have not reviewed it since. I was fairly certain I was right, and indeed I was right, in my assessment that the Alibert held Trinity up because all of the team were not behind the 20 when they tried to take their tap and that all the Leeds team were behind the 20 for their tap (I now know that Buderus was in front of the line, but I will get back to that).

Now, why did I notice this and feel confident enough to post comments on such... because I was specifically looking for it on both occasions!!!

Both teams moved quickly to take the tap and I know that a quick tap is only allowed when all the attacking team have got back on-side behind the 20, so while watching on TV, I was looking for it, along with also trying see and quickly note who was off-side in the defending teams when the tap was taken, just in case.

This is also exactly what any ref has to do at this moment in time (as well as many other things) and while I am not excusing Alibert, I think he let the quick tap be taken because, like me, he had not even noticed that Buderus was slightly yet notably in front of the 20. When it comes to him spotting that he is not quite on or behind the 20, amongst the other things he is looking out for at this time, he actual has a poorer view than the still from the camera on the OP. He (Buderus) may not have been quite central either and while it should be easy for Alibert to spot this one how central is central and in this case the still shot in the OP you can't honestly tell anyway?

The solve to this problem is very easy, we should now mark centre of both 20's with a metre long (500mm each side) perpendicular line. I am almost certain that, if we did have such a marking on the pitch, Alibert (and all ref's) would find this type of offence easier to spot as they would have a clear visual marking reference on the pitch. I am sure that if this had been the case on Saturday, Alibert would have seen this and held Leeds up to take the tap again.

Now the bit that unfortunately some of you will still accuse me of having blue & amber tinted glasses on about! All ref's are actually looking for the quick tap to be allowed rather than dis-allowed... but the number 1 criteria is that all the attacking side are behind the 20! Alibert (who lets be frank, is not the best we have by a long way) is not deliberately or otherwise trying to be crap, inconsistent or biased, he is trying to ref the game to the best of his ability (which might be quite low... unfortunately) and that goes for all the decisions he did or did not make. If we switch the teams in this situation around does Alibert make the same decisions again (a right one and a wrong one)... of course he does, and Leeds fans are the ones moaning that Obst was in front of the line and they got held up so why didn't Trinity etc, etc! Because he missed it, Alibert (and me) did not spot it! Two wrongs don't make a right either!

I don't think he had a great game but I don't think he had a shocker, I do think you were on the end of more of the bad calls but no more than I thought Leeds had from Child at Belle Vue. And if we just look at this very simply, the penalty count at Belle Vue was far more one way than this one, but do I think Child was biased... of course not.

Now of course, if we were talking about the WCC and Mr Silverwood....

I posted the Wakey tap that had to be repeated ,nobody in front of the ball,the only thing you could pull it for is the 2 players with foot on line.But I'd have thought that would of been good enough for a quick tap.

Hmmm, selective pausing I feel. Come on now, do not show yourself up, where is the pause when Jefferies foot touches the ball a second or so earlier. Uncle Albert has already got the whistle blown and is pointing at the offending player. I will of course not make you look even more daft by saying if that is when the tap was taken (which it clearly is not as he is shaping to pass the ball) he is in front of the 20 also isn't he???

Wakefield had a man in an offside position when the tap was taken and Buderus was in front of the 20 when he took his. Alibert spotted one and did not spot the other. You are very much wearing your Blue, White & Red tinted specs if you think otherwise.

As I posted above, two wrongs don't make a right, but you seem to want to prove otherwise!

Although I hate commenting against a pro-Leeds bias, isn't one of the rules that the ref himself has to be in position. You can see from the Leeds restart that Alibert is ready, whereas for ours, he isn't. Also, the ball is already in play on that shot, and so Richard Moore must have been just crossing the line when it was taken.

I know the restart can be a lesson in pedantry sometimes, where a player is made to retake it because he isn't central, and then just retakes it in the same spot and nothing is done, but our restart looks messy, with players and the ref all over the place, whereas the Leeds one looks pretty controlled, apart from some of our players not quite getting back.

Hate to say it, but I am with the ref on this one.

No, you are mixing up the current international interpretation of a 20m restart, where the ref does indeed have to be in position (well, back on the 30m line, I am not sure position is the best word) and the tap can not be taken until he has blown the whistle to signal so. In Super League quick tap restarts are allowed and the ref is encouraged to allow them to happen so long as it is otherwise legal and the attacking players have all got back behind the 20m line and are in an onside position.

You make an interesting comment about the position of Alibert and one I had also noticed. The Leeds kick IIRC had come from a deeper field position than the Trinity one, as such the Leeds players has less distance to travel to get behind the 20m line where as the Trinity players had further to travel. The same applies to the ref, meaning that Uncle Albert was able to get back to the 30m before a few of the Trinity players. This could also explain why Alibert missed Buderus being in front of the line, as his position does make that slightly harder to spot from 10m back. What I am saying is that if Alibert had been in a similar position to the this for the Leeds tap he probably would have spotted that Buderus was slightly in front of the 20m line. He should have pulled Leeds back as Buderus was in front of the 20m line, but that does not mean he should have allowed Wakefield to take theirs when Moore was clearly (despite some peoples poor attempts to distort the truth) offside.

Fair point about the Super League and International rules. Thanks for that. My general view is still that the Wakey restart was in the context of a right old mess, whereas the Leeds one looks controlled, with the only players not getting back ours.

I would agree, but I think that is purely down to the relative field positions of both sides, and the ref, when the ball went dead. If Moore had made it back on side in time you could have got some serious yards as far more Leeds players are offside trying to get back to the 30 than Wakey players in the Leeds tap. I suspect that is why Wakey fans are upset that Albert missed Buderus being in front. However, that did not lose you the game, Gleeson rushing out of the line at Senior, getting it wrong, and leaving the gap that he then went through (after being quite ordinary most of the game) a few tackles later did that!