Ganson does have form for showing the red, though. Not always against us, even. IIRC did he not red card Fletcher for Hull, a bit harshly, when we played them at the KC a few years ago? And we won the game, probably as a result?

And wasn't it him that red-carded Mozza in the first minute of that international a few years ago?

From BBC reportHe appeared to try to dislodge the ball from Tomkins' hands but referee Steve Ganson decided he intended to harm the player.'"

It wasn't accidental, it was a deliberate swing to make contact with the player. Accidental would be where he didn't intend to make contact. What we have here is he didn't intend to make contact with the head, but the ball/arm, but did hit the head and it goes down as reckless. Textbook example. IMHO of course.

It wasn't an 8 pointer either, as Tomkins was not fouled whilst touching down the ball, that rule only and strictly applies to "the period during which the ball is touched down for a try". Not before, not after. It's a miracle that Tomkins didn't lose it, and still touched down, but you couldn't correctly say he was fouled "whilst touching down", because he wasn't.

So what are O'Loughlin's high shots? Accidental or reckless?

Normal

I just don't understand this rule. It feels as though whatever foul occurs ALWAYS happens either just before or after the ball goes down. To have a foul happen in the split-second that ball touches ground might happen once every few hundred years surely?

I reckon on April 1st 1895 they slung that rule into the book and completely forgot about it.

You called it an act of assualt. Does that mean tackling someone is affray with intent?

The spear was reckless and life threatening so where's the sending off?

In fact when Tomkins booted Morris in the WCC that was dirty and intentional - so what there? Life ban?



I wanted to single this bit out. Read it back to yourself.

Unless what you actually meant to write was...



Love to see what a precedent that would set.

It was either worded that way, or else left that way, in the 2004 revision. I agree, it's a barking definition, but half the rules need a brains trust to decipher, it's just one more that needs total re-write.

Can someone also please explain one thing to me:

Towards the end of second half Wigan knocked the ball on, then went through and touched down. Ganson went to video ref and it was not given.
However verdict was scrum attack - how was this possible?

One of our lot had touched the ball in flight so was the first knock on.

So under normal operating conditions the ref awards the try. Warns the player and then said player get's mentioned on the RFL's website on the Monday. RFL then send a letter to player's house advising him towards his future conduct. The RFL have set the precedent with this. Remember Webb on Elima at Odsal?

Only it's on TV and a man who's character has been brought into question (not charged with anything but I can say he was accused of being out late and drinking the night before an important match without any legal trouble because a lady did do that and it was in the papers) has made a different decision to what we have seen on other occasions.

Yes he did and you could see that on the first replay. Bulls player knocks on then pie eater knocks on. So why we have to sit through another 10 minutes of replays and checking whether the player grounded the ball before or after the line is beyond me. It summed up the standard of officiating today.

I've been saying for ages that someone would end up chinning Sam, but you have to hand it to Raynor, managing to deliberately punch him in the chops whilst Sam was running at full pelt and Raynor was closing from an angle with only a split second to make sure he hit him on the chin whilst disguising it as a poorly timed attempt to knock the ball out - that's devious that. Ban him for life or send him back to prison at least I say - he's obviously a menace and shouldn't be trusted around the likes of those sweet little Tomkins boys - angels the both of them.

In a nutshell.

Webb on Elima is a very good comparasion. Oh how different the outcomes though.