To say it was a shocking decision you don't sound so sure.

Did you actually see the incident?

Yes mate I did, and from what I saw it didn't look like even grounded the ball, whether it was in the field of play or in touch, hodgson didn't to me look like he thought it was a try by his lack of appeal/celebration!

IMO of course I just can't see how he could give it as a try, that's why I think it was a shocking call!

What your view era?

I was on the opposite side of the pitch but Hall said after that the in goal judge gave it.

It was a poor call by whoever gave it, but at the end of day it was given, and atleast it didn't cost us!

Is there a protocol for refs to follow when the officials are undecided ? e.g. if the touch judge says no try, the in goal says try and the ref didn't have a decent view ? Or does he just go with whoever he thinks had the best view ?

at half time my lass felt a little unwell so we moved from the southstand to the western terrace as there was space for her to sit down so I was approx 5 yards from the try in question and hodgeson touched it but on the line. the lines man was about the same distance and waved for 20 meter restart the in goal touch was a good 20 yards away and with at least 2 players blocking his sight? I can only assume ben has more respect for the in goal officail than the linesman.

havnt seen a replay but thought it was a reasonable call on the night, benefit of the doubt to the attack was probably taken into account
no question of a try if it was defended correctly!

Difficult one for the ref. You have extra eyes on the pitch to take advice from. If the in-goal judge calls it a try then you have to take his advice (unless you clearly saw different). What you do when there are two conflicting repsorts I don't know, but my guess is that the in-goal judge has "jurisdiction" over these types of decisions relating to in-goal incidents.

Correctomundo!!

Refs always ignore the touchies. They are there to give advice, not to make decisions is what I was told. All this crap you hear in the stands when people "say get your flag up linesman" and the like makes me laugh. They are mic'd up so they are talking all the time.

Come on Harrigan, what do the Laws actual state is the role of the touch judge? They are there to make decisions (as well as give advice) according to the laws and on two very specific things, upon which the ref should accept the decision of the touch judge?

Ok, here what the laws say -

[iThe Referees shall enforce the Laws of the Game and may impose penalties for any deliberate breach of the Laws. He shall be the sole judge on matters of fact except those relating to touch and touch in-goal (see para. 11 below).[/i Interestingly the rules are wrong here because it says paragraph 11... when it is actually paragraph 10!

So they are not the SOLE judge of matters relating to touch or touch in-goal decisions!

[iAccept Touch Judge decision - 10. The Referee shall accept the decision of an official Touch Judge relating to touch and touch in-goal play and to kicks at goal.[/i

As I understand it, this is about the ball going and a player carrying the ball into touch, so the ref is not allowed to overrule the touch judge on these matters, meaning if a touch judge thinks the ball or a player goes into touch and the ref doesn't see or disagrees he has to concede to the touch judge! However, in Friday's situation are there two decisions to be made, the first being did Hodgeson get the ball down BEFORE it then went touch in-goal?

The laws currently don't say anything about in-goal touch judges and what there role is formally in the decision making structure, interestingly!

Let me tell you what I think Mr Thaler will say if questioned about this... he will say that he thought it was a try and so did the in-goal touch judge and as such he was able to overrule the touch judge in this circumstance as it was 2 against 1. However, looking at the Super League show the in-goal touch judge stands his ground (indicating a try) and the touch-judge waves a 25 restart but you can't see what what Mr Thaler does? For me the rules are clear, the touch judge should be believed (irrespective of whether he actually got it wrong of right when viewed back) and it should not have been awarded.

I think if Mr Thaler did not clearly see the try himself he has actually got the technicalities of this decision wrong and the touch judge should have been believed and no try awarded. He doesn't appear to have consulted the touch judge and just believed the in-goal judge over the touch judge... this is against the laws IMO.

Finally, having looked at it a few times it is not a try for me, the touch judge does appear to be spot on and make the right call. Had Mr Thaler obeyed the laws, he should have waved the try away!!!

They all got the decision wrong IMO.

It appeared to be a 'No Try' as far as I could tell from the footage available via the Super League Show coverage. That deals with the in goal judge and the referee but for me the touch judge also made the wrong call in indicating a re-start on the twenty as Smith appeared the last player to touch the ball in the field of play.

I think I would be inclined to agree, in that Smith does appears to just poke/touch the ball out with his foot very close to the line, so drop out call from touch judge should probably have been the call.

However, my point is about the laws and the technicality of the decision making process, the touch judge has the call on this one for me, not Mr Thaler or the in-goal judge, and Mr Thaler should know that as a first grade ref!