it's not though is it. It is still a valid interpretation of placing. I don't see how can argue as a matter of fact that contact with the finger when the ball touches the ground is not an acceptable interpretation of placing the ball down with the hand or hands.

The fingers are part of the hand and you can place things with a minimum of control.

Some people need an anatomy lesson. The fingers are a part of the hand (as is the palm).

If some people's interpretation is to be believed, then virtually all of those spectacular wingers' tries we have seen the past year or so would need to be chalked off.

Bump

Yes Greenwood bumped him over, clear as day.What an absolute shocker.

Yeah, I cant really defend that.

Last season yes. Possibly every previous season. BUT this season they changed the rule so that there has to be proof the defender is actually obstructed.

Look at what Ben Roberts does. He spots Quinlan's run. He realises he is going to be challenged by it so uses the dumb run by Greenwood as a get out clause. He steps into Greenwood and the fall is pathetic. It's absolutely pathetic. It's a football style dive intended to get the penalty by default. As he's not trying to tackle Quinlan, has he therefore been obstructed by Greenwood?

All Roberts has to do there is put some effort into moving over. If he makes it look like he's trying to reach Quinlan he gets the penalty every time. He's lazy and tries to accept the penalty by default.

The problem people have is that the player's are always in the process of losing the ball. The two previous ones were, Percival was. Two were given and one wasn't. None of them should in reality.

The Percival disallowed try was the clearest example you'll see this season of what we refs refer to amongst ourselves as "an equaliser".

The decision had nothing to do with where Percival's fingers were or weren't, and everything to do with where Greenwood and Roberts had been earlier on.

We see this far to ofter in games. Silverwood is the best "Equaliser" this season in balancing up games.

Why would a video referee 'equalise' his own decision? Only explanation for that would be him pressing the wrong button?

You do realise we're talking about something the size and shape of a RUGBY BALL here. Not a screw.

Because people make mistakes. Then on reflection later realise they've made a mistake. And there's something very human about, consciously or unconsciously, trying to make up for that mistake.

The try which was awarded when Greenwood obstructed Roberts was a mistake. It was a pretty clear obstruction. But Percival also had easily sufficient contact with that ball when it touched the ground, plus an on-field decision of a try. So that was the making up for the earlier mistake.

To err is human. To think "Bugger, I messed up there. Next 50-50 goes the other way." is also human...

Nope. They definitely told us that WOULDN'T happen when we went to ... video referees.

All I'll say is if all Rupert Murdoch's technological inventions are as effective as the video referee system - I think we've gone a long way toward explaining why SKY's bills are so high.

I mean, do you put a toaster down with your fingers?
A loaf of granary bread?
A box of crystal wine goblets?
A pet rabbit?
A small granite boulder?
A toolbox?
An eight pack of Stella?
A generously spacious lunchbox?
A £2,000 Canon EOS 5D Mk. III?
The wife's jewelry box?
Your jewelry box?

This post demonstrates a total lack of understanding of RL or a huge amount of bias.

All Roberts does is hold his ground which he has to do as he doesn't know who is going to get the ball. Greenwood alters his run and goes straight into Roberts. All Greenwood needed to do was step off his left foot and move towards the inside shoulder of Roberts giving him the opportunity to slide. If he had done that I doubt Roberts would have made the tackle and a fair try would have been scored. He didn't and prevented Roberts having that oportunity.

Please could you point this out to Saddened and ask him to remove his Saints biased glasses. It was as clear an obstruction as you're ever likely to see. I take your point about the "equalising" although in principle its wrong.

Saddened's world is output only, not inputs. I like his posts though, as they amuse me.

Looking back at quite a few Sky match replays with the video ref bad decisions this season. There does seem some suspicion that maybe the video refs are being instructed by SKY on the final outcome referral.

Problem here is people thinking the incidents involving Achurch and Ellis and the one involving Percival are exactly the same just because they involved questionable finger tip decisions.

They weren't the same. The first two were ball carries who had control of the ball and then given benefit that they didn't lose contact. Percival was going after a loose ball so never really had possession of the ball like the other two.....see the Ryan Hall no try vs Australia last try.

Eh? I don't really know what your point is.

If you are trying to say that a RUGBY BALL cannot be perfectly well controlled by the fingers alone, then I suggest one of the following applies to you:

A) You have very small child-like hands, or
B) The last time you played rugby (if ever) the ball was of the leather, lace-up variety

Let's say the ball can be "perfectly well controlled" with the fingers (bear in mind that hands the size of Sonny Bill's are the exception - not the norm). In the last few weeks I've seen tries given (as well as not) with barely a fingertip in contact.

Are you telling me the ball can be "perfectly well controlled" with the end of [ione fingertip[/i?

There's a reason coaches tear their hair out over the way a player places the ball down in the act of scoring.

I've seen cup finals and test matches lost because of it (Mark Elia & Martin Offiah respectively). There's no ball security to speak of.

That Carney try v Leeds was very dodgy. You just knew Alibert would give it though.

as much as needs to be, certainly.

Putting the word "certainly" after an equivocal statement doesn't make it any less equivocal, you know.