Re: Wigan V Cas : Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:53 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Bear in mind, if the cameras were not at these games, the ref just checks with the "touchies" and makes his decision and surely, this is what lies behind the current VR rule.
If the cameras weren't there, or the game didn't use them, we would be going with the ref's call.
Most of the time, they get it right but, sometimes not.
(they do make some howlers though)

That's a fair point actually and I've never considered the fact that the on field decision brings televised games more in line with non-televised games (although I did think earlier in the thread when someone called for the VR to be scrapped because of this decision that they would still have ended up with a try being given as that's what the referee guessed). Still, it's a downward levelling off, rather than an upward one. We are making televised more like non-televised games by making them less accurate (by introducing a referee guess) rather than the other way around (which I accept we probably just don't have the resources for).

Re: Wigan V Cas : Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:05 am  

Surely it works both ways though? If the on-field ref hasn't seen the player ground the ball (how could he have when Manfredi probably didn't ground it), why did he go with a try on-field?

Re: Wigan V Cas : Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:06 am  

Having rewatched it I've changed my mind. On the first angle it looks pretty clear to me that as Manfredi's hand passes the ball the ball changes spin and direction. I'd have to say from that that he did touch it and that both ref and VR got it spot on. https://youtu.be/fAwgo_XlbHk

Having rewatched it I've changed my mind. On the first angle it looks pretty clear to me that as Manfredi's hand passes the ball the ball changes spin and direction. I'd have to say from that that he did touch it and that both ref and VR got it spot on. https://youtu.be/fAwgo_XlbHk

Re: Wigan V Cas : Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:30 am  

I'm confident he touched it having watched it quite a few times. The ball does deviate very very slightly as his hand goes past it, there is even a single frame where it appears Manfredi's little finger could be bent back brushing the ball.

There's no controlled downward pressure though, so we all know it shouldn't have been a try really - but... that's not the rules sadly.

Re: Wigan V Cas : Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:51 pm  

Orrell Lad wrote:

I'm confident he touched it having watched it quite a few times. The ball does deviate very very slightly as his hand goes past it, there is even a single frame where it appears Manfredi's little finger could be bent back brushing the ball.

There's no controlled downward pressure though, so we all know it shouldn't have been a try really - but... that's not the rules sadly.

I always thought it was to have 'downward pressure', surely the end of a little finger 'somewhere' on the ball cannot be acceptable as control. I thought he was nowhere near it. Far too much inconsistency as well, we have had them chalked off by the video ref after the ref gave an on field try with the Sky team being baffled as to why it was chalked off.

Re: Wigan V Cas : Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:09 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

...Hicks had a very clear and narrow remit: prove Manfredi missed the ball.

It isn't much use making comments if you don't know the rules. Missing the ball isn't needed - indeedit is likely he brushed the side of the ball as he tried to ground it. What he needs to be satisfied is that there was no downward pressure. I'm sorry, but anyone who clutches at straws claiming there may have been downward pressure is just being argumentative for the sake of it. There was no downward pressure and it is silly to say there may have been.

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

...In the frames where Manfredi's had passes the ball it is possible - however unlikely - that his finger brushed the ball.

Indeed, but if the rules had wanted to include "brushing" the ball then they would add it. As it is, there has to be downward pressure.

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

.. In this situation all the rules require is that it be possible for Manfredi's hand to brush the ball.

Nonsense. Not in the actual Laws of the Game.

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

.. Better yet, if the rules were changed from "downward pressure" to "significant downward pressure" he could have disallowed that and many other controversial tries that seem to make the game look ridiculous.

Not necessary. If any part of the hand makes any contact at all with the top surface of the ball whilst the ball is on the ground then that is downward pressure. We don't need "significant". We just need people to accept that sideways brushes can't be called downwrad pressure. We need to ask ourselves, when they wrote that definition, did they mean to include what Manfredi did? The answer is a resounding "Of course they fukken didn't!"

Listen, the only people saying Hicks was in the right are those arguing about some arcane view of the VR protocol, but NOBODY is saying they thought Manfredi scored a try having seen the replays. If your argument is, "I am pretty certain it wasn't a try, but Hicks was right to give it", then you are supporting a version of the rule that would bring the game into disrepute. The whole point of the VR is meant to be to above all get the decision right.

That we arrived at a plainly bad decision is bad enough. If you're saying the same should happen the next time, then I give up.

Re: Wigan V Cas : Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:48 am  

If he brushed the ball as his hand moved downwards then it's downward pressure, however small an amount. But honestly it doesn't matter now, don't let it keep you awake at 2am!

Re: Wigan V Cas : Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:16 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

That's a fair point actually and I've never considered the fact that the on field decision brings televised games more in line with non-televised games (although I did think earlier in the thread when someone called for the VR to be scrapped because of this decision that they would still have ended up with a try being given as that's what the referee guessed). Still, it's a downward levelling off, rather than an upward one. We are making televised more like non-televised games by making them less accurate (by introducing a referee guess) rather than the other way around (which I accept we probably just don't have the resources for).

The difference is at a non televised game then there would be an in goal judge, he would have had the best view, and pretty sure it would have been disallowed, if there was in goal ref at that game even with video ref, pretty sure it would have gone up as no try.

Fact is everyone except the video ref thought it was no try, fortunately it not not effect the game.

Re: Wigan V Cas : Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:29 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

If he brushed the ball as his hand moved downwards then it's downward pressure, however small an amount. But honestly it doesn't matter now, don't let it keep you awake at 2am!

As a Cas fan I have to agree with your interpretation, including your previous posts. As iniquitous as the decision was. I said to the tigress it was never a try but the VR would have to give it.