As a neutral and without any particular like for either team... there is no way that can be classed as "jumping into a player with the knee". Houston went up for the ball legitimately and Miller didn't even bother jumping, that's why Houston got to the ball and Miller didn't.

Oh that settles it then....a Wigan fan ends the debate!

rlrl


From Joe Cobb's position what is he seeing there?

Answer: Chris Houston's knee up in the area of Jacob Miller's face, nearly 6ft in the air....if that's not impeding a player I don't know what is?

It is exactly the same camera angle buddy trust me. The only difference seems to be that Sky have zoomed in on the action a little. But you're quite right that Houston is clearly onside so I'm still non the wiser what Carney is talking about. Not that it matters as his opinion counts for nowt.

OMG you were being serious about the knees thing. Sorry mate. I thought we were having a laugh. Awkward.
I'm sorry mate but there is nothing in that video or the screenshot showing the contact to suggest that Houston has interfered deliberately with Miller. If anything there is a fairly decent argument that Miller is interfering with Houston as he seems to have his arms around him but Miller simply didn't challenge well enough for the ball.
I'm helpfully willing to take any number of screenshots this weekend to show attackers challenging for the ball with their knees tucked up. If contact of the knee against the opposition led to a penalty then there wouldn't be very many tries resulting from kicks at all. Unless we want to instruct them to start jumping like beanpoles. That's one way to go I suppose.

I will check back on Monday on this thread to see all your screenshots of players with their knee over 5ft high in the air challenging for a ball then...

I can't wait to see all the Wakefield players jumping for kicks with their knees completely straight. Should be a great sight.

Ha ha ha.. give me til Tuesday mate there'll be a fair few of them. And what does 5ft in the air have to do with it? You just said that contact of the knee into the defender is enough to warrant a penalty. A lot of it rests on defending as bad as Millers of course.

Ha ha ha. I know mate. Beanpole jumps from now on only.. and since the dawn of time Rugby League wise too apparently.

I can give you an easy one to start with...Tom Johnstone at home to Salford....about 4 and a half minutes into the sky highlights video....perfect example of how to outjump an opponent to score without having your leading knee at head height...

Oooh you should see the Denny Solomona try against Saints at the weekend!! Amazingly it was given (the try). Even though the saints player decided not to jump! He should have asked for a penalty. I'll stick the image up when I get a mo.

I saw it....maybe if Joe Cobb had seen it he may have given a penalty? That's one of the huge problems of the game....referee's interpret things differently...we see it week in week out both on the field and at the disciplinaries....similar things happening in games with different results.....from Cobb's position and how he was viewing the incident I can certainly see why he gave a penalty and think he was right to do so....

You could argue every week about a decision changing the course of a game....like the Ah Van tackle for instance....how can a tackle that results in a five game ban only receive a yellow card while the two red cards were less serious? If he had got that decision right and shown the red card the course of the game would have been different...

This type of challenge happens loads and is likely to happen every time an attacking player outjumps a defender running into the catch. Sure there's going to be variations. It depends on where the attacker has come from etc. But tries such as these are given all the time. They were when I was playing (scoring and on the receiving end) and I hope they are given for a long time to come.
Also you'll notice the referee in that game has got a game this weekend and Cobb doesn't. Looks like the Rfl are backing him on the sendings off (and I do for the Ah Van one.)
In terms of things that determine a game. Let's say Ah Van goes for a red. Moore could go too of course for running in and retaliating. But even if he stays on the pitch. There is still a lot of time to play in the game (60 mins?). You might win. We might steel ourselves and get the win. There's a lot of the game to be played and a lot of variables that can come into play at that point. When this no try thing happens Widnes should put themselves two tries up on Wakey with very very little of the game to play I.e. Far far fewer variables. It's an almost certain winning try. Surely you understand that? It's probability.

interesting that in the widnes v hull game earlier this season hull had similar claims for a try disallowed which would have put them 0 - 12 up. i know they later got mullered in that game but that could have affected the outcome. seems that what goes around eventually comes around

Similar but not the same? I mean if you've got anything to show that the hull player wasn't impeding the Widnes player then it's obviously relevant. If I remember correctly that was a sky game and the decision was handed upstairs to be looked at. I think I remember the video ref overturning the on field ref who had awarded a try.
**just found it on YouTube. It's disallowed as Marsh is tackled in the air. The Hull player does not make any valid attempt to challenge for the ball and a second player tackles him in the air. So a bit different.

Just out of interest looking at the pics do you think Houston is impeding the Wakey player?