Nuff said

How can he defend that decision?? He need dropping for the rest of the season.

It's the referees that are ruining our product, there not bent there just incompetent!

2 turning points in the game the forward pass that was never forward wigan go on to equal up the score , then the farce where peewee put the ball on the touch line

Ganson's video decision can not be trumped, ever!

Correct decision. Nuff said.

No matter how many threads you post this on it doesn't start making you right.

Oh right that's it then you said it's correct so it must be, could you do me a favour, EXPLAIN how it was correct within the rules of the game then I might listen but otherwise your speaking $h|t.

The worst one ever was James Roby at Crusaders a few years ago. He was tackled short, then he knocked on, then he picked ball back up and put it over line and vid ref gave it! Was a shocker!

Leeds v bulls at magic weekend was a shocker

It was 50/50 at worst, but because it was "Wiggin" it was the worst decision ever

He can draw you a nice diagram.
It's a flawed diagram but he can draw it for you anyway.

Never went to the VR, was just ganson on the pitch refusing to go to the VR that caused the stink.

Worse than Chris Green's try?

Charnley's try in the corner, where the implication from the commentary box was that he'd put it down on the dead ball line?

I'd have given it, and I'm a Saints supporter.

How you can suggest that's worse than Chris Green's try against Rovers, I don't know.

Has Child come out and explained this decision anywhere?

I should think he'll be answering it this aft or tomorrow on twitters #asktheref,

Hope he doesn't just do a Thaler and justify it was a right decision because he says so.

My main gripe is that last season in the Cricket Ground corner of the West Stand, BJB scored exactly the same try (or didn't) and the video ref disallowed it. Reason being if its simultaneous contact with try line and touch its no try.

What caused the stink was the initial penalty given for a non-existent offside by the VR making a big mistake.
The offside from the kick missed by Ganson was much more understandable given he wasn't in a position to see it and didnt receive any report from any other official.

James Child is having an awful season both on the field and as VR.
Didn't think the 2nd Charnley touch down was a try but his contest with Hodgson for a try I thought was a four pointer.
Jon Wells in his game review used the Super Zoom, that and Wells confirmed it was a try with Charnley beating Hodgson and grounding the ball.
Two wrong decisions with the correct number of points gained by both teams.
Child has to up his game.

Well, should I or shouldn't I?

You see, just above you, I get:


So some people object to me commenting at all, others ask me to explain. Can't really win!



Anyway, the point I made (with diagram!) is that the bit of a round ball that touches the ground first, as viewed from directly above, isn't on the edge, but somehere along the line of the ball. Where will depend on the angle of a rugby ball, but it will always be a point along the centre line.

At the moment that point first touches the ground, the side of the ball nearest the touch line may well be overhanging the touchline. But it isn't making contact with the touchline. That's because the ball is curved, and none of it is touching the ground at that moment, except for the one single point which hits the ground first.

After that, the ball may well be forced further down, and the pressure may well squash the ball so that the "outer edge" touches the white line, but it makes no difference; that only happens after the event. It is where the ball first hits the ground that counts, nothing else after that matters.

I hope this explains, but will gladly explain further if you aren't clear.

thats only relevent if the ball is put down flat. The fact the ball is curved is irrelevent if it is put down at an angle. As it was.

But can you actually articulate what the flaw/s is/are? You simply stating it is "flawed" doesn't cut it.

No! The ball can never be put down flat - unless maybe it was completely deflated and ironed!

As Led Zepplin once told us ‘sometimes words have two meanings’

In the context I was using flat, I was clearly using it to describe something level, without slope or tilt. Something even. That’s why I opposed it with something tilted. I hoped it would elucidate you to the context.

So yes, whilst an inflated ball isn’t flat, it can be placed down level, without slope or tilt, even. you know, flat.

Listen, before I go on, do you want to debate this, or is your sarky tone indicating that you just want to be y? I'm happy to discuss it but aren't in the mood just now for a kindergarten yahboo convo.