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!

I may well be wrong here, but at the game I was sure that the touch judge signalled for a drop out, not a twenty restart. And could not understand why the Huddersfield players were going to line up for the twenty restart. Then totally confused when he gave the try.

Isn't the signal for drop out where he points his flag on the try line?

On the assumption that the referee was presented with a split decision who should he side with officially?

I note that the role and jurisdiction of the in goal judge is not defined in your reference material.

For me I'd say the touch judge should be responsible for any touchline decisions, including touch in-goal leaving the in goal judge as arbiter on dead-ball line decisions.

My interpretation of the rules, as written, is that it is the touch judge (not the ref) is the final arbiter in the circumstance of ANY call relating to touch or touch in-goal. So strictly speaking, if the touch judge disagrees with the ref on a touch or touch in-goal decision the ref should actually concede to the touch judge in this circumstance only.

So, given that currently in-goal judges don't appear to have any formal status in the rules in this area, then yes, he should have gone with the touch judge and not the touch in-goal judge! However, I bet if you ask him now he will say both he and the in-goal judge thought it was a try and therefore it was 2 against 1... even though the rules don't back him up there either!

I'm not sure you're right here. The final call is always the refs, except for conversions, when 2 touch judges overrule the ref.

No idea about the in-goal judges, my course didnt cover them

Flag down for both, but arm up, and pointing to the 20m for tap 20, and arm down pointing between the sticks for a dropout

Err, no it's not, read the laws!