Hate to say this but Union on this is way ahead if us. If that had occurred under the world cup union games the ref would have asked check it. And has an input in the decision making. By giving a decision on field it makes even dubious decisions a try.

Needs changing as well as foul play. By that anything worthy of a red card can be checked by a video ref and player dismissed.

For example and this is an example please do not throw in a MM did this or Faz did that but in the 2013 Westwood hit Green and should have gone straight red. Those should be dealt with in the game even after the tackle. Union uses this too often on all things almost but for deliberate foul play it works well. Also we need to go back to forward passes another area where union is ahead of us. we might not have a lot to learn from the playing side but officiating has a lot to learn from Union.

I used to laugh at Union because of the knock ons they let people away with but it's turned full circle and we're now the ones that should be laughed at. That was a shambles that Moon try but they've got themselves in a spot where the video ref can't overturn an onfield error because there's the slimmest chance that he may be wrong.

I say that but they didn't have an issue turning the McGuire no try in to a try when he ground the ball whilst going in to touch against us in our last game at Headingley. Show me somebody who tells me they were 100% certain McGuires midfriff hadn't touched the line as the ball was put down and I'll show you a bullsh*tter.

The video ref should be falling on the side of the evidence in front of him, not the word of his mate on the field.

Agreed

If we are going to analyse tries scored with suspect or forward passes in the build up the list would be endless.
My real point was that fans of all clubs tend to remember the decisions that go against them whilst forgetting the ones they profited from. After we beat saints the week before the GF a saints fan gave a list of poor obstruction calls they had been on the wrong end of this season while failing to mention the worst one of the season against Castleford from which they were the beneficiaries.

The point that quite a few of us are trying to make is that in the last couple of months of the season Wigan were very harshly treated by the VR ( and one person in particular). There will always be 50/50 calls to be made by the on-field ref, some of these will go your way, some against. On-field refs will also make genuine mistakes and not spot knock-ons, forward passes, ball steals etc. Again some of these will go for you, some against. On-field refs have to make snap decisions and will understandably not get everything right. VRs have the benefit of numerous replays and camera angles and should thus come to a decision that concurs with the views of the majority who know the laws of rugby. With quite a lot of knock-ons that are given, the ball actually ends up going backwards, but the initial movement out of the hands was forward. Some of these are harsh, but they are almost always given - or they have been in all my experience ( 50 years) of watching rugby.
What has been so galling in both the Headingley game and the Grand Final is that they weren't 50/50 decisions that went against Wigan and for Leeds. The VRs came to a decision that the vast majority of people (and not just Wigan fans) with a knowledge of rugby would disagree with. Were they 90/10 or even 99/1 (Sinfield's at Headingley, McGuire's at Old Trafford)?
One must ask the question why? What is the common denominator? Various theories .....

I dislike Westwood as much as the next man but that was never a red.

The common theme is that every single professional referee who looked at the so-called knock on agreed that a try should be given.

I'd agree they're almost always given by on-field refs who, rightly or wrongly, tend to give the benefit of any doubt to the defending side. However, I'm less sure the VRs do, given as they are several replays upon which to base their decisions.

I dislike the whole VR thing full stop. But if we must have it, then there are real weaknesses surrounding the on-field decisions of try/no try. I suspect Thaler went to the VR for McGuire's try under the illusion that TV evidence would confirm or refute his on-field decision. The fact that it did neither meant that his decision stood. There's a nagging suspicion in the back of my mind that Thaler had no clear idea whatsoever as to whether a knock-on had actually taken place.

It would be interesting too know how the video refs saw it. Was is 2 yes's or 1 yes and 1 no? Why wasn't Ganson video ref when we needed him


In the end the try stood, but after having conversations with some Saints and Wire fans all said no try. I believe a former Leeds player was watching the game in a bar in Billinge and he thought it was no try.

It was clearly no try and never has been a try until they changed the way decisions are sent upstairs.

That would have been turned down in any of the other 17 grand finals without any shadow of a doubt.

Wouldn't have been surprised to have seen it chalked off. I'm not even sure of the rules though. If losing the ball forward without it hitting the ground is a knock-on regardless of what happens next, then it was. Or is losing it momentarily forwards viewed as the same as a fumble, i.e. ok so long as you either regain the ball or the propel it backwards or sideways? If the latter, then it wasn't and the VR decision stacks up.

I'm like yourself in that I am no longer sure of the rules. I thought that loosing control of the ball whilst facing your oppositional is a clear knock on all day long irrespective if eventually propel it backwards or sideways.

So many of us can't help thinking the try would have been disallowed if a Wigan player had done exactly the same as McGuire did....! That is the crux of the whole matter.
I find it amazing that apparently the RFL apologised to Wigan and SW after the Headingley game when despite 2 knock-ons by Sinfield both tries were awarded by the VR, Bentham. That there was a case of déjà vu just over a month later with an even more blatant knock-on really sticks in the craw.
Claims that 3 professional referees deemed it not to have been a knock-on and awarded the try do not alter the fact (as already stated) that the vast majority of people with a knowledge of rugby (not just Wigan fans) would have disallowed the try for a blatant knock-on!

They may know rugby but do they know the rules? If, for example, McGuire had fumbled the ball then palmed it backwards/sideways without it having hit the ground or an opponent then I doubt many would call it as a knock-on (unless in their view it had gone forward and not sideways). Is it different if it hits his leg? I'm not claiming to know the answer although there must be one.

If he palmed the ball backwards before it hit the ground it would be ok. In this case, though, the ball came forwards out of McGuires's hands and then involuntarily hit his thigh. From what I understood Cummins to be saying, this "involuntary" action was the crucial fact. If he had deliberately kicked the ball, it would have been ok but he didn't. Definite knock-on! As the vast majority agree.
I still don't know how 2 professional referees could come to this decision. I have my theories, but....

From the rules:

"Accidental 2. If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed.
Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball"

Their definition of a kick is to impart movement with any part of the leg from knee to toe but excluding the heel.

Looks like you're right unless they deemed the ball to have hit the knee.

All the professional referees agree it was a try.

Makes up for the seemingley endless 50/50 video ref decisions that have denied leeds against wigan in recent years. Mcguire ''drop kick'' try 2011, mcguire obstruction try MM 2013, Joel Moon phantom knock on MM 2014, Mcguire obstruction try 2015 (which was confirmed should have stood after by the ref's).

Basically anytime in the last 5 years there's been a 50/50 video ref call in a game against wigan, it's gone wigan's way. In all those games less than 6 points winning margin.

Poor old downtrodden hard done by wigan.

Where have you been me owd stocking top?
No soccer on toneet in Merseyside?

He's a Leeds fan, with an infatuation with the 'S'

Well his input is as useful as a tackle in soccer. Non existent.

I think this is actually the reason the ref making a decision needs to stay - as we don't have the video ref at every game, what would have happened if this incident happened in a non-televised game? The ref still wouldn't have had a clear idea, but would have been forced to make a decision in conjunction with his touch judges etc, so the outcome would have been the same - try.

By making the ref make a call - where it's a 50/50, it means the VR or lack of a VR doesn't alter the decision, the on field ref needs to make a call on the evidence he has to hand, and only if that can be proven to be wrong should it be over turned. Those who say a ref shouldn't have to 'guess' when he doesn't know for sure - what would he do in a non-televised game?

Also, by making the refs give a decision, tangible MI can be produced to see which refs get the most calls wrong, and the RFL can then work with each individual ref to find out why they got it wrong and learn from it (it could be bad positioning etc). What would be good to know is the numbers on this for the season - which ref sent the most decisions up to the VR, which ref was overturned the most/least - is there any variances based on potential team bias etc.... Using this system, there's lots of data that could be analysed - I doubt this data will be made available to the fans though.

Bottom line is we'd recovered from the "knock on". We had all the momentum and then chucked it away when we took the two points.
No-one to blame except us.

It's not often anyone says this,, but FlexWheeler's right...

It's alright seeing it from your own teams POV. Remember that Lee Smith offside try in the GF against Saints?

Again, only an error to people who didn't understand the rules. Lee Smith's standing foot was clearly behind the ball. His body, running forward as he was, was level or ahead of the ball. It's the former which matters.