Catalan owner not h...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Catalan owner not happy!

Page 1 / 2
(@sandgroper)
Noble Member

Hardly a surprise tbh.

Let alone decisions that depend on the referee's view the one massive mistake was Maloney's kick to touch declared as not in touch was plainly on the line! This when (iirc) Cats had a man advantage!

Likewise have you ever seen a more obvious 'penalty try' . The man had the ball in his hands and would clearly have scored if not for the head hunter tackle. Liam More at his best, looking the other way!

Quote
Topic starter Posted : 10/10/2021 12:42 pm
(@sinbad)
Noble Member

Saints get the big calls as usual.I've seen comments that it isn't certain a try would've been scored but you'll not a find a better 99% example.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 1:09 pm
(@sandgroper)
Noble Member

Saints get the big calls as usual.I’ve seen comments that it isn’t certain a try would’ve been scored but you’ll not a find a better 99% example.

Absolutely! But the ball on the touch line was just a massive error.

Why didn't More get the video ref to confirm it? Wonder if Cats will move to the Treize League?

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 10/10/2021 1:27 pm
(@sandgroper)
Noble Member

What made it worse was the lack of any mention of this by our chatty commentators! Warned not to be controversional?

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 10/10/2021 1:39 pm
(@ditton-donkey)
Prominent Member

Not surprised, did not get the rub of the green

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 2:44 pm
(@ditton-donkey)
Prominent Member

What made it worse was the lack of any mention of this by our chatty commentators! Warned not to be controversional?

What made it worse was the lack of any mention of this by our chatty commentators! Warned not to be controversional?

What made it worse was the lack of any mention of this by our chatty commentators! Warned not to be controversional?

Saints get the big calls as usual.I’ve seen comments that it isn’t certain a try would’ve been scored but you’ll not a find a better 99% example.

Absolutely! But the ball on the touch line was just a massive error. Why didn’t More get the video ref to confirm it? Wonder if Cats will move to the Treize League?

I thought on the line was out - same as when a try is given for on the try line ?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 2:47 pm
(@markw)
Eminent Member

It was the video ref who said no to the penalty try after being asked to look at it.  I wonder what More would have given without the video ref being there?   Certainly the sin bin and it not being a penalty try would seem to be at odds with each other.  It would be good if the RFL could explain it.

Also, you need to be able to trust your Touch Judge in a big game - that play on call from the Maloney kick to touch was a shocker, not even close, but you can't blame the ref for that one - that is a trip to specsavers for the touch judge.  So the two really suspect calls weren't actually made by the on-field ref.

I also thought Saints second try should have been an 8-pointer, as the Cats defender comes in with the knees.  But poor comments from M. Guasch, smacks of very sour grapes.   Maybe he would have preferred Thierry Alibert in the video ref box - would have at least added some additional comedy value.  Be interesting the see if the RFL fine him - certainly if it had been Degsy or the Doc from a few years back, they'd be off to Red Hall next week!

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 2:53 pm
(@johno)
Eminent Member

I may have got this completely wrong, but aren’t you confusing two kicks. Malone tried for a 40-20 that hit the line before the full back tapped it back into play, but that was rightly given Cat’s way. He later kicked to touch that sailed over the line but a Saints player jumped to knock it back in, landed off the field and then tried again. That one, wrongly, went Saints way.

As for the penalty try that wasn’t, I wanted Catalans to win, but I thought it was yet another example of a tackler hitting an arm or a shoulder and the movement of the players afterwards taking the tacklers arm up to the head. It looked horrific at normal speed but he didn’t aim for his head (and that, for me is the only reason a penalty for ‘head high’ should be given - e.g.  if a player is falling and a tackle that is aimed at his body  strikes his head I don’t think the tackler has done anything intentional).

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 3:04 pm
(@markw)
Eminent Member

As for the penalty try that wasn’t, I wanted Catalans to win, but I thought it was yet another example of a tackler hitting an arm or a shoulder and the movement of the players afterwards taking the tacklers arm up to the head. It looked horrific at normal speed but he didn’t aim for his head (and that, for me is the only reason a penalty for ‘head high’ should be given – e.g. if a player is falling and a tackle that is aimed at his body strikes his head I don’t think the tackler has done anything intentional).

That's perfectly possible as to what was going through the video ref's mind as to why it wasn't a penalty try, which is why I think the RFL could placate some of the negativity by explaining the VR thought process  - current interpretation says contact with the head is a penalty no matter where the initial contact is or the intent, but the sin-bin is usually reserved for the ones that hit the head first rather than bounce up off a shoulder, hence why I was a bit confused.  VR could have thought the initial legal contact below the head was enough to generate doubt about the certainty of the try and the arm then going up into the head was then the penalty - hence no penalty try.

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 3:17 pm
(@ditton-donkey)
Prominent Member

I may have got this completely wrong, but aren’t you confusing two kicks. Malone tried for a 40-20 that hit the line before the full back tapped it back into play, but that was rightly given Cat’s way. He later kicked to touch that sailed over the line but a Saints player jumped to knock it back in, landed off the field and then tried again. That one, wrongly, went Saints way. As for the penalty try that wasn’t, I wanted Catalans to win, but I thought it was yet another example of a tackler hitting an arm or a shoulder and the movement of the players afterwards taking the tacklers arm up to the head. It looked horrific at normal speed but he didn’t aim for his head (and that, for me is the only reason a penalty for ‘head high’ should be given – e.g. if a player is falling and a tackle that is aimed at his body strikes his head I don’t think the tackler has done anything intentional).

yes you are right, confused the two

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 3:18 pm
 tosh
(@tosh)
Active Member

Thought Tomkins was unlucky to be penalised when the marker prevented him from correctly playing the ball , dead set two pointer and golden point extra time

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 3:49 pm
 Dan1
(@dan1)
Reputable Member

It was a penalty try all day long. Illegal tackle in the act of scoring a try. No other defenders anywhere near. Without the illegal tackle Yaha would have scored. If that's not a penalty try they need to scrap the rule as its the definition of a penalty try.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 4:45 pm
(@anotherposter)
Estimable Member

As for the penalty try that wasn’t, I wanted Catalans to win, but I thought it was yet another example of a tackler hitting an arm or a shoulder and the movement of the players afterwards taking the tacklers arm up to the head. It looked horrific at normal speed but he didn’t aim for his head (and that, for me is the only reason a penalty for ‘head high’ should be given – e.g. if a player is falling and a tackle that is aimed at his body strikes his head I don’t think the tackler has done anything intentional).

That’s perfectly possible as to what was going through the video ref’s mind as to why it wasn’t a penalty try, which is why I think the RFL could placate some of the negativity by explaining the VR thought process – current interpretation says contact with the head is a penalty no matter where the initial contact is or the intent, but the sin-bin is usually reserved for the ones that hit the head first rather than bounce up off a shoulder, hence why I was a bit confused. VR could have thought the initial legal contact below the head was enough to generate doubt about the certainty of the try and the arm then going up into the head was then the penalty – hence no penalty try.

That's why we should hear the video refs deliberations as they do in Australia

Think your assesment is right but in my opinion it was the secondary contact with the head that took him out of Play, obviously the video ref disagrees

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 4:46 pm
(@farnworth-viking)
Prominent Member

As for the penalty try that wasn’t, I wanted Catalans to win, but I thought it was yet another example of a tackler hitting an arm or a shoulder and the movement of the players afterwards taking the tacklers arm up to the head. It looked horrific at normal speed but he didn’t aim for his head (and that, for me is the only reason a penalty for ‘head high’ should be given – e.g. if a player is falling and a tackle that is aimed at his body strikes his head I don’t think the tackler has done anything intentional).

That’s perfectly possible as to what was going through the video ref’s mind as to why it wasn’t a penalty try, which is why I think the RFL could placate some of the negativity by explaining the VR thought process – current interpretation says contact with the head is a penalty no matter where the initial contact is or the intent, but the sin-bin is usually reserved for the ones that hit the head first rather than bounce up off a shoulder, hence why I was a bit confused. VR could have thought the initial legal contact below the head was enough to generate doubt about the certainty of the try and the arm then going up into the head was then the penalty – hence no penalty try.

That’s why we should hear the video refs deliberations as they do in Australia

They used to do it on the BBC in the  challenge cup matches, and we also saw the video ref looking at the screen and saying what he thought, then they stopped for some reason.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 7:15 pm
(@royston-vasey)
Honorable Member

I think the video ref would have this one in the General Rugby folder if it were sent for review 😁😁

ReplyQuote
Posted : 10/10/2021 8:38 pm
Page 1 / 2
Share: