Pattons no-try : Sat May 26, 2018 8:05 am  

Dec Pattons disallowed try was an interesting one. The referee went to the video because he was unsighted.The video shows that it was a try, however because the whistle was in the refs mouth whilst the ball was just above the grass it was deemed tackle complete...and no try. The question then is if the referee is unsighted how could he call the tackle complete?

Re: Pattons no-try : Sat May 26, 2018 8:38 am  

I've pretty much given up trying to understand some of the rules now, they seem to change every single week

Re: Pattons no-try : Sat May 26, 2018 8:40 am  

Plus I don't think we should have an ex-ref in the commentary box pointing out every mistake the officials make to the viewers. As if they don't get enough criticism already.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Pattons no-try : Sat May 26, 2018 9:09 am  

silver2 wrote:

Dec Pattons disallowed try was an interesting one. The referee went to the video because he was unsighted.The video shows that it was a try, however because the whistle was in the refs mouth whilst the ball was just above the grass it was deemed tackle complete...and no try. The question then is if the referee is unsighted how could he call the tackle complete?

Poor positioning from hewer, he should have been front on, also had another player inbetween him, and the ruck

Re: Pattons no-try : Sat May 26, 2018 10:41 am  

We were penalised for poor reffing there. It should have been a try but because Hewer wasn't paying attention the VR couldn't really give it.

Re: Pattons no-try : Sun May 27, 2018 1:27 pm  

Not sure Cummings offers anything useful or incisive anymore, time to move on. As for the video ref, isn't the purpose to check and confirm / amend as appropriate. The ref got it wrong so the video ref should have over ruled him and the try should have been awarded. The Hull defence did not stop on the ref whistle.

As for the ludicrous current interpretation of the obstruction rule, it seems that sometimes the video ref is desperately trying to find a reason not to give a try. They should have an ex-pro along side for these who would you hope be more likely to better understand what has gone on re: misread / poor defensive read or actual obstruction

[Wanderer]

Re: Pattons no-try : Sun May 27, 2018 6:13 pm  

The Railwayman wrote:

Not sure Cummings offers anything useful or incisive anymore, time to move on. As for the video ref, isn't the purpose to check and confirm / amend as appropriate. The ref got it wrong so the video ref should have over ruled him and the try should have been awarded. The Hull defence did not stop on the ref whistle.

As for the ludicrous current interpretation of the obstruction rule, it seems that sometimes the video ref is desperately trying to find a reason not to give a try. They should have an ex-pro along side for these who would you hope be more likely to better understand what has gone on re: misread / poor defensive read or actual obstruction

Hope it's a better ex-pro than those selecting the MoM candidates.

Re: Pattons no-try : Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am  

Wigan looking to sign him,League Express again, the paper is very active today on our comings and goings.

Re: Pattons no-try : Mon May 28, 2018 2:49 pm  

It’s a shame if Wigan are able to take our hometown juniors and work on them, when we are looking to gamble on union exiles. Patton has impressed me more since his utility role backing up at 9.

Re: Pattons no-try : Mon May 28, 2018 4:49 pm  

easyWire wrote:

It’s a shame if Wigan are able to take our hometown juniors and work on them, when we are looking to gamble on union exiles. Patton has impressed me more since his utility role backing up at 9.

Yes but we need to replace a half back, not hooker.