Even Achurch thought he hadn't scored when he stood up.

They had to gave that after the try they gave in last nights game.

Not like they ever cared about consistency before. Someone got binned for a trip last night but Kylie only got penalised a few weeks ago.

James Child is literally the worst ref in the comp. No bottle at all.

How?
Says no try then try
Say try then no try.

Not his fault that the stupid ridiculous video ref system turns a HIGH SPEED COLLISION sport into a micro managed , by the nano second joke.

Sorry but no one has yet to come up with a convincing argument to change my mind

Which is worse, no bottle or wrong decision?

for me, neither Ellis' or Achurch's were tries, i suppose by the letter of the law they are deemed tries if there is a finger nail on the ball, but for me, to remove any doubt, for the on field ref and the video ref, it should only be a try if there is obvious, visual downward pressure, thankfully, the 2 tries mentioned didn't change the outcome of the games.
if those games aren't a SKY games then we get totally different outcomes, i suspect the on field ref would give a no try and knock on against the attacking team.
the ref's jobs are hard enough without adding to it,so for me, unless there is visual downward pressure, it's a no try

as much as he's incurred my wrath previously, i can't see how he can be held responsible? it's the system not the ref that causes problems.

He went to the VR for every try with the tiniest bit of doubt.

Look at the last one, he was literally 2 feet away from the whole incident yet he'd rather have someone look at it from a camera that's at least 30 feet away.

And quick to jump in and give a knock on at least 3 times when it wasn't.

It's a difficult job, and at times referees are going to be guessing but they shouldn't be having to do it with the frequency that Child does.

Comedy moment at the end when Sinfield queried which Leeds player had knocked for the extra set of six and Child couldn't tell him who it was. If he's one of the six best match officials in the country, then Jon Sharp has run that department into the ground.

Not talking just about that try, just in general. He doesn't develop any kind of rapport with the players and consistently relies on gut feel and the assistance of the VR (when on SKY).

i would agree with that, he's been terrible on the occasions we've had him and "missed" some very nasty challenges (the rangi chase on ferres for example) i think there have been 12 match bans handed out to players who he didn't think were even penalties.

Whilst I too find it hard to accept that minimal contact but no control counts as a try, if we were to change the rule to a sufficient amount of pressure required it becomes another rule which isn't clear cut.

At least at the minute it's a clear yes or no, there are too many rules already that are grey areas so we don't need to add another one.

It's a shame the video refs from the last 2 games couldn't have been the video refs in Melbourne last year.

This is the issue. Someone said it should be "visual downward pressure." Define that. It's open to interpretation. The try given had visual downward pressure... one finger.

Someone else has said they should be in control. Again, how do you define that?

Unless it's a clear cut, black and white rule, it won't work. It has to be yes or no. I think the only way you'll get that is if you say something along the lines of all four fingers or the palm of the hand must provide downward pressure to ensure there is sufficient control of the grounding.

IMO it should be a minimum of palm of the hand in full contact - all the way down.

To be fair to Leeds, I thought the video ref ruling for Jones despite never once seeing the ball grounded was equally ludicrous.

I only have one thing to say to those who support this fingertip "uncontrolled scoring" sophistry:

Greg Inglis touched the ball down before Hall.

The rule HAS been changed, but not officially. Neither was anywhere near a try. The laws state that to score a try you have to ground the ball, and that is defined as:-:


The "downward pressure" in this context is therefore nothing at all to do with it. The "downward pressure only refers to a situation of touching a loose ball that is on the ground.

The key word is in fact "PLACING". This is - please note - placing "with hand or hands".

Losing grip of the ball but still managing to have a finger in contact with it as it lands may be many things, but never in a million years is it "placing". And as far as my understanding of English goes, a finger is not actually a hand. Very clearly the law requires the hand to be in control of the ball, and place it on the ground. If a finger was enough, the law could have said "touching down with a finger". But it doesn't.

Absolutely 100% bang on. This is what is happening as a result of "professional" referees. They are sat in classrooms all week working on micro "interpretations" which is subtly and unnecessarily changing the game.

Another example that springs to mind is the 8 point try.



For years this law was applied as it was intended. "Touching down for a try" was accepted as being the few seconds prior to a player crossing the line until touchdown. The Law is a sensible one, to prevent and eliminate cheap shots on tryscorers that would otherwise go unpunished due to the advantage law. Each season would see a small number of 8 point tries.

All that changed when the law was unofficially changed to mean "A foul committed at the instant the ball was grounded", meaning 8 point tries have all but been eliminated.

that's the one!

the tip of a little finger is neither "control" "placing" "pressure" or anything else referred to in the laws, so why is it deemed a try?

Well, we know why, don't we? It's been made clear uptbread that it's all about eliminating 'grey areas'. You don't like it, and I don't either, but I don't see them going back to interpreting the laws as they used to.

You have to deliberately ground the ball in your in goal area, an incidental grounding such as when picking the ball up or trying to knock it dead doesn't count.

because you can place things with your fingers. Its pretty simple and easy adjudicate. if your hand remains in contact with the ball the whole way down its a try. I'm not sure what else it could be, the ball has been grounded and never left the hand.

It's good to see the discussion on "finger tip control" . All the varying view points just add extra evidenc that the video ref system isn't any good.

Let the match officials on the field make the calls. Thats what they are there for.

As an alternative, eliminate the on field officials and control the game via remote contol using the camera systems and loud speakers to make all the calls. If there is doubt, ask a person on the terraces/stands.

That seems to be as good as the current barmy system which is not helping the game in any positive way.

If the law required grounding you would be right but it requires placing.

If the law only required placing with a finger (assuming for a second such an absurd thing is possible with a rugby ball) then you would be right, but it requires placing with a hand or hands.

On Twitter #AskTheRef Hicks has disingenuously avoided the actual law and said:


The problem is of course that simply stating "fingertip control is sufficient" not backed up by any rule is worthless. Saying "in this case...correct" without explaining is simply bogus; the equivalent of saying "Well, it just is".

Instead (and not for the first time) we have a complete re-write, in practice of a clear law of the game, the refs agree to ignore the law as written, while the actual requirements remain on the books. If they don't like the law, then by all means change it, but don't try to pretend that you are complying with something that you are in fact ignoring.

The whole separation thing is how the law is 'interpreted'. I don't like it, many occasions in the past few seasons I've watched replays and thought there's no way he's got control of the ball but they'll give it because there is no separation. For me having full control of the ball is paramount.

I believe the reason they brought in the separation interpretation is because it is easier to judge and gives the VR a fact to look for rather than his opinion which having full control would be.