MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:16 pm  

Apologies if this has been brought up previously, but does anyone know why he was brought back when clear in the first few minutes?! Although it had no bearing on the result whatsoever, it still irks me, I couldn't see anything live, and having seen it back, I still can't! I don't see him running behind anyone and obstructing any Saints player from getting to him, but that's the only thing I can think of as to why he was brought back?

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:20 pm  

He was brought back because James Child was the referee FULL STOP!!

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:44 pm  

IT was a really marginal obstruction decision and a pretty poor one by the ref imo.
Was also a real momentum shift early in the game as I thought we started ok.

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:06 pm  

You must remember it happened early in the game and Child had not gauged how well Saints were playing on the day.

He therefore took the precautionary measure of calling obstruction just to keep Trin in check.

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:11 pm  

Prince Buster wrote:

You must remember it happened early in the game and Child had not gauged how well Saints were playing on the day.

He therefore took the precautionary measure of calling obstruction just to keep Trin in check.

not normally one for ref bashing, but that had a Saints victory to order written all over it.

Do you think Thaler would have pulled that up - we'll never know because apparently he's the only ref in SL who can't be trusted to ref his home team.

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:43 pm  

I Have watched it 10 times on replay now and I still cant tell what a strange decision - was their some first tryscorer bets going on?

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:50 pm  

Radio Yorkshire commentated that Child and his whistle blowers gave some odd decisions and missed some forward passes in saints favour. and radio Yorkshire don't as a rule bash refs

[PopTart]

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:01 pm  

It was given for obstruction.
Personally I wouldn't have given it and there were similar ones allowed the other way but he did run behind a player that blocked a tackler.

Re: MCB : Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:45 pm  

Seemed a very harsh call but i suppose technically correct. The saint's defender had committed to tackling the wakey player who then offloaded the ball to MCB who was running behind him. I highly doubt the saint's player would have got anywhere near MCB as he was already committed to another tackle, but the decision was right as the player was obstructed (through their own fault) from getting to the ball carrier. I do wonder if the game had been on Tv if he'd have let MCB score and then send it up as a no-try for the video ref to check

Re: MCB : Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:11 am  

Remember MCB still had the full back to get round. Saints did get away with a similar move in the 2nd half but dropped the ball just after the break.