Uncle Rico:



I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of your post, 'to err is human' and all that, BUT for third parties including it seems the powers that be, yes there is a greater authority that Jon Wilkins, to compound matters by fudging and tinkering around the edges to back up the match day officials is unacceptable and that is why in this case "the judiciary" is getting "so much stick". 


          

ninearches:


Which is more or less what i said . Wilkins' after the fact comments are irrelevant except to the tv viewers , but the laws of our game allow ambiguities from the officials & could do with either tightening up across the board, considering we have video replays to get a final decision, or simplifying to allow clear decision making for refs & less confusion for fans on the terraces.

sally cinnamon:



Remember that time we played Halifax away and Briers kicked 5 drop goals and we still lost. Maybe if he'd kept putting it in goal to force them to do repeat sets we might have tired them out and scored 2 tries or more?

BarbedWire2:

I wonder if there is a rule against using your captains challenge to challenge the “I’ve got a try” stuff. If the Holroyd one goes up as a try it is likely to get given, there’s a hand on the ball but it’s not ‘conclusive’ evidence. Similarly with the Davies try, if they’re going to look for a reason to NOT give the try, they’d find it. 

Wires71:

We would have all accepted the decision in the reciprocal circumstances. 


We should have scored some points in the 2nd half rather than try to defend a 4 point lead. 

Richard Shanks:

I have referred to the laws of the game themselves to try to resolve (in my own mind, at least) the issue surrounding the efficacy or otherwise of the decision around the winning try and, indeed, the words that have been used both by Jon Wilkin during Saturday's broadcast and subsequently allegedly confirmed by the RFL.


It would appear to me that the issue is dealt with by the definition of two terms included in the laws Section 2 Glossary.


The first of these is the term "touch down" which is officially defined as : "the INTENTIONAL grounding of the ball by a defending player in their own in-goal" (capitalisation mine)


That then moves you on to having to understand the definition of "grounding the ball" which is officially defined as :-


a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands, or:-
b) exerting downward pressure on the ball with hand
or arm, the ball itself being on the ground, or:-
c) dropping on the ball and covering it with the part
of the body above the waist and below the neck, the
ball itself being on the ground.


The combination of those two definitions in no way distinguishes between attacker or defender in the methods of achieving grounding of the ball and to suggest that the laws make such a distinction is disingenuous at best. What's more, you can't interpret a law by removing unilaterally from it one of the three methods specifically provided within it.


The only difference between attacker and defender is the introduction of the concept of intention to the defender's actions, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.


If it is true that the RFL, as reported, have jumped to the defence of the match-day officials by confirming Jon Wilkin's assertion that a defender can not ground a ball with his torso, that begs two questions of them:-


1. Where is the evidence of that by reference to the laws of the game?
2. Why have they not made reference to all the decisions that the match-day officials got wrong (as evidenced by the findings of the MRP today) which, if sanctioned at the time in line with the MRP findings, would have resulted in the issue of yellow and (in the incidence of the alleged spitting incident) red cards, which would inevitably had a significant impact on the outcome of such a tight match? 


I accept that the latter point raises a number of additional and wider issues over the different ways in which match incidents are viewed by the match-day officials (and the role of the video referee is the key one here with his ability to intervene) and the MRP/disciplinary. There was doubtless an intention to keep such a high-profile game 13 v 13 (remember what happened last year with the early sin-binnings of Mike Cooper and Matt Dufty) and on the basis that potentially punishable incident would balance each other out (which they clearly didn't on Saturday to the ultimate benefit of the perpetrators.


Of course, I may be wrong over my reading of the laws of the game and would not be averse to accepting an evidenced rebuttal of the position outlined above, preferably by the RFL or Mr. Wilkin!! 

Wires71:

We would have all accepted the decision in the reciprocal circumstances. 


We should have scored some points in the 2nd half rather than try to defend a 4 point lead. 

sally cinnamon:



I thought we did the right thing, with a lead in the 2nd half against the favourites, forcing repeat set after repeat set. 

Hull KR were in a bad position in the last 20 minutes of that game. Best team in the country but with no silverware yet and facing the mental gremlins of seeing another final slip away, in the pouring rain, and being trapped in a doom loop of being forced to drop out from under their sticks by Sneyd who is relentless at keeping the pressure on.


Most teams would have broken at some point either from the physical or mental pressure and if we'd gone 12-2 up that would have been game over. They are a very good team to survive that. They withstood the pressure and had one opportunity to punish us and they took it. 


Unfortunately we make scoring hard work because we don't have the strike players of old that can finish plays. Imagine that last 20 minutes if Sneyd had the guys around him that Briers did in the final years of his career...Hicks, King, Atkins, Monaghan etc. He'd have been putting kicks to the corner and we'd have swamped them.