Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Wed May 25, 2011 8:55 am  

Stealth Comic wrote:

I pretty sure the ref used the VR in Morley's red card for his attempted decapitation of Robble Kerns after 12 seconds against Australia.

Ah yes it was Kerns, for some reason I thought it was Webke, anyway it was an Australian so thats good enough for me He should never have walked

I was referring to the incidents being different, not the use of VT.

Again, putting my cynics hat on, if it had been Morley getting flattened (as per the Cassidy incident) by an Australian I wonder if a British ref would have sent him off? There has long been the suggestion that British refs bend over backward to appear "fair" and overlook too much that's dished out by the Aussies. Plus the British refs seem susceptible to the pre match garbage spouted by aussie coaches. I seem to recall that the coach of an aussie club team, a week before the match, presented the ref with a DVD of all the supposed dodgy play he felt his British opponents used. That's even better than Alex Ferguson

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Wed May 25, 2011 9:18 am  

Stealth Comic wrote: I'll agree with you to an extent on this, it was just a bit of good old fashioned biff. In fact I'd go as far to say it was a rather nice 3 punch combo from Tuilagi. Ashton probably deserved it and it was the most entertaining thing I've seen in Union in years. I'll disagree there. It would have been entertaining and classed as biff if Ashton had fought back but as it was Tuilagi's action's were bordering on common assault. Sure, Ashton was stupid to push him in the first place but he had just recieved a head high tackle. If Tuilagi had got up and pushed Ashton back fair enough. That last punch in slow mo is a peach though I bet Tompkins wouldn't have stayed on his feet You can see it here but you will have to wait for the adverts to finish: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/8516105/Video-Manu-Tuilagis-punch-on-Chris-Ashton.html

Stealth Comic wrote: I'll agree with you to an extent on this, it was just a bit of good old fashioned biff. In fact I'd go as far to say it was a rather nice 3 punch combo from Tuilagi. Ashton probably deserved it and it was the most entertaining thing I've seen in Union in years. I'll disagree there. It would have been entertaining and classed as biff if Ashton had fought back but as it was Tuilagi's action's were bordering on common assault. Sure, Ashton was stupid to push him in the first place but he had just recieved a head high tackle. If Tuilagi had got up and pushed Ashton back fair enough. That last punch in slow mo is a peach though I bet Tompkins wouldn't have stayed on his feet You can see it here but you will have to wait for the adverts to finish: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/8516105/Video-Manu-Tuilagis-punch-on-Chris-Ashton.html

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Wed May 25, 2011 4:14 pm  

Dreamer wrote:

Didn't it go upstairs because it was in the act of scoring a try?

I think he asked to check whether it was a dangerous tackle - BUT - Not until after he stood at the side of him and saw the 'vacant look', that and the reaction from his team mate. I don't think he asked to check the grounding...!???

Regardless of which - why no penalty?

Dreamer wrote:

You lost your marbles long ago

Guess Who made me lose my marbles? No I mean Guess Who?

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Wed May 25, 2011 5:40 pm  

Whinger© wrote:

I don't think he asked to check the grounding...!???[/quote

He must have done because the video ref gave the try.

Whinger© wrote:

Regardless of which - why no penalty?

It was as blatantly obvious an 8 point try as I've ever seen, he must have got caught up in the furore of incident and forgot the rules!

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Wed May 25, 2011 6:18 pm  

Just seen this on the Wigan forum: Pie Eyed wrote:Not bothering to read through 6 pages, but can I just post what I heard from Ganson over his link? He told the VR *NOT* to award the try until Ganson gave the go-ahead, because "the player is still on the ground". At that time, he was trying to sort out the fact that "His brother is trying to fight everyone, including me." However, the VR *DID* award the try, so Ganson went with it. From everything that was said at the time, plus what was said in the ref's changing room at half-time, I firmly believe that Ganson *wanted* to give a penalty try and would have instructed the VR to do so, had he been given the chance. It was the fact that the VR jumped the gun by hitting the button so early that robbed us of the extra 2 points. If true it answers some of the questions asked. The disciplinary panel findings are here: http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 This bit is interesting: "The committee are of the opinion that this incident was a case of the player going to save a try with his arm outstretched to knock the opponents arm or the ball." Even more interesting is this bit: "The committee are of the opinion that Wigan should consider re-signing Chris Ashton as his aerial approach to the try line is much more spectactular and he doesn't have a glass jaw"

Just seen this on the Wigan forum: Pie Eyed wrote:Not bothering to read through 6 pages, but can I just post what I heard from Ganson over his link? He told the VR *NOT* to award the try until Ganson gave the go-ahead, because "the player is still on the ground". At that time, he was trying to sort out the fact that "His brother is trying to fight everyone, including me." However, the VR *DID* award the try, so Ganson went with it. From everything that was said at the time, plus what was said in the ref's changing room at half-time, I firmly believe that Ganson *wanted* to give a penalty try and would have instructed the VR to do so, had he been given the chance. It was the fact that the VR jumped the gun by hitting the button so early that robbed us of the extra 2 points. If true it answers some of the questions asked. The disciplinary panel findings are here: http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 This bit is interesting: "The committee are of the opinion that this incident was a case of the player going to save a try with his arm outstretched to knock the opponents arm or the ball." Even more interesting is this bit: "The committee are of the opinion that Wigan should consider re-signing Chris Ashton as his aerial approach to the try line is much more spectactular and he doesn't have a glass jaw"

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Fri May 27, 2011 11:43 am  

Dreamer wrote: The disciplinary panel findings are here: http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 This bit is interesting: "The committee are of the opinion that this incident was a case of the player going to save a try with his arm outstretched to knock the opponents arm or the ball." Glad to see the panel thought he was going for the ball and not a cheap shot like posters on here have tried to make out.

Dreamer wrote: The disciplinary panel findings are here: http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 This bit is interesting: "The committee are of the opinion that this incident was a case of the player going to save a try with his arm outstretched to knock the opponents arm or the ball." Glad to see the panel thought he was going for the ball and not a cheap shot like posters on here have tried to make out.

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Fri May 27, 2011 1:32 pm  

Just because a panel thought that does not alter my view it was a cheap shot. Based on the their comment about it being an attempt to save a try why did they give him a ban I would have thought based on what they said I would have thought it would have been classed as sending off as sufficient punishment.

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Fri May 27, 2011 3:09 pm  

Stealth Comic wrote:

It was as blatantly obvious an 8 point try as I've ever seen, he must have got caught up in the furore of incident and forgot the rules!

I think there must be contact /infringment after the try is scored for it to be an 8 pointer.

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Fri May 27, 2011 8:18 pm  

obeone wrote: I think there must be contact /infringment after the try is scored for it to be an 8 pointer. Taken from here RFL Law 13.9 Offence against Try scorer. If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period. This is why in the 20 years i've watched the game i've only seen an 8 point try given twice. In the Raynor situation had he fouled Tomkins before he dived for the line it would have been a penalty try, had he knocked him out after the ball had been grounded Wigan would have kicked off with a penalty on halfway.

obeone wrote: I think there must be contact /infringment after the try is scored for it to be an 8 pointer. Taken from here RFL Law 13.9 Offence against Try scorer. If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period. This is why in the 20 years i've watched the game i've only seen an 8 point try given twice. In the Raynor situation had he fouled Tomkins before he dived for the line it would have been a penalty try, had he knocked him out after the ball had been grounded Wigan would have kicked off with a penalty on halfway.

Re: Raynor - Yes or No? : Sat May 28, 2011 8:54 am  

Stealth Comic wrote: Taken from here RFL Law 13.9 Offence against Try scorer. If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period. This is why in the 20 years i've watched the game i've only seen an 8 point try given twice. In the Raynor situation had he fouled Tomkins before he dived for the line it would have been a penalty try, had he knocked him out after the ball had been grounded Wigan would have kicked off with a penalty on halfway. Absolute garbage.The law is an . See you sunday

Stealth Comic wrote: Taken from here RFL Law 13.9 Offence against Try scorer. If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period. This is why in the 20 years i've watched the game i've only seen an 8 point try given twice. In the Raynor situation had he fouled Tomkins before he dived for the line it would have been a penalty try, had he knocked him out after the ball had been grounded Wigan would have kicked off with a penalty on halfway. Absolute garbage.The law is an . See you sunday