I remember coming out of the West Stand a few years back now after some absolute tanking by Saints. A few of their lot were chanting "That's why we're champions" so I'm assuming it was in 2007 after their GF win in 2006 but I'm not certain. Anyway, some old fella who obviously supported Wires started waffling on to anyone who would listen about how bad the referee was. This resulted in a couple of young Saints lads crying laughing before exclaiming, "You can't blame the referee for 40 points!"

Obviously they were completely correct but this old fella still seemed determined to try his best while I silently skulked off back to the train station. This thread on the back of last night's game reminded me of that incident.

I wasn't at the game last night due to the time I finished work, I posted it just after seeing the try on TV as I thought it was worth talking about.. I certainly never implied that we lost because of that one incident.

I never said you did. Some people on this thread aren't half whinging about a few decisions that in the grand scheme of things made next to no difference though.

So, if the ball is passed and the receiver deliberately chests the ball forward, kicks on and scores, that's OK. What if a player heads the ball forward, kicks on and scores, is that OK? For whatever reason Ablett failed to control the ball, probably due to Evans getting a hand to it. Should have been a scrum to Leeds. None of this affected the result as we were played off the park by a Leeds outfit playing the offload game wonderfully well. Reminded me of Wire a couple of seasons back.

Key word right there.

I'm really interested as to how there's been a four page thread about this complete non-debate, because you can dress it up as whatever hypothetical you want, but the fact is the correct decision was made. There was one knock on in the whole thing and that was by Warrington. You knock the ball on and it hits an opposition player and - provided it doesn't hit their hands or arms - it's play on - always has been, always will be. Even if there hadn't been a Wire hand in there it's probably still a try as you can't knock on with your waist.

You want to talk about questionable decisions then how about Hardaker's hat trick try that was clearly grounded on the line?

I watched it on sky & looking at the shots after the McGuire try it looked more as if it came off Ablett's midriff & his hands looked clear of the ball at all times. The grounding was perfect too. A perfect opportunist try. I think Hardaker was definitely short for his attempt though, but i am sure he will get many more hat tricks in his career.

I don't think there's any doubt that it was a perfectly good try. However, my concern is that it was sent to the video ref as a no try, and as such there had to be conclusive proof that Ablett didn't knock on in order to give the try. It was so tight that I'd say there was no absolute conclusive proof as to whether Ablett did or did not touch the ball with his fingertips, hence should have (incorrectly) gone back to the referees on field decision.

Ultimately made no difference whatsoever to the result, and all chip paper now (or would be if they still used newspaper).

You mean the double movement to get the ball on the line which was then inexplicably given as a play the ball?

No double movement there in the slightest, he didn't promote the ball at all and there was at least one camera angle where it seemed quite apparent that the ball was on the line.

The ball was initially grounded short of the line, but I agree it did then clearly end up on the line. It is a matter of opinion as to whether it was a try or not and obviously ours differ. My point is (as this is a bit of a video referee discussion) there were only two decisions that the video ref could make, Leeds try or Warrington penalty, yet they manage to come up with a third impossible option.

The whole video ref issue seems to be more complicated these days. In fact the whole of rugby league seems to be more complicated these days & not all for the better.....it used to be a simple game.

This is what I thought at the game. There was no conclusive evidence that Ablett didn't touch it with his hands as it went through - the perfect camera angle just didn't exist for that. In years past, there would have been no doubt that it would be given as a try because the preponderance of evidence, benefit of doubt in favour of the scoring team etc indicated in all likelihood he didn't touch it. Under the stupid 2015 way, with Child calling it as no try there needed to be conclusive proof that he was wrong - and I just don't think there was so the try should have been chalked off.

Five pages to get to this point, finally someone with common sense.

Whether Ablett knocked-on or not is moot. There was not the slightest modicum of evidence to counter Childs' on-field decision, regardless of the accuracy of the decision.

PS

The greater question is: What did the VR see to override Childs' decision?

Could it just be that Childs was unsighted as to what part of Ablett's body had touched the ball but had to assume that his hands were involved ?

I thought it was a knock-on. He tried to catch it, didn't, that should be a knock-on.

The above might be a very simple approach but it would be an effective one.
The officials are increasingly trying to be smart-ar5es with each passing season.