Re: Wakey in cc : Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:00 pm  

fartown since 1961 wrote:

Ironically he allowed the Grix one and disallowed Connors wrong way around for me but we could have played all week and still lost.

Grix was basking in the glory of scoring, it wasn't till Johnston had hold of him e remembered he had to put the ball down, I'm not convinced he did that.

Re: Wakey in cc : Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:13 pm  

Jo Jumbuck wrote:

Yes. He couldn't see if the ball was grounded over the line by Ginger, But he reasoned out that due to the complete ineptitude on display, they couldn't possibly have scored, but decided to give us a penalty in the hope that we could bring the scores a bit closer with another chance.

Just watched it on TV as I had left the ground long before it happened.

Thanks....... But I'm still no wiser about the decision....

Re: Wakey in cc : Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:33 pm  

jools wrote:

Thanks....... But I'm still no wiser about the decision....

Think the correct decision should have been a penalty try, Gerry was fouled in the in goal area with no player to beat . Conners effort was a Try all day for me, It hit the try line before it rolled to the side line.

Re: Wakey in cc : Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:20 am  

Jo Jumbuck wrote:

Think the correct decision should have been a penalty try, Gerry was fouled in the in goal area with no player to beat . Conners effort was a Try all day for me, It hit the try line before it rolled to the side line.

I just want to know what sky showed the reasoning was behind the decision given by the VR. What did the VR say?

Re: Wakey in cc : Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:31 am  

I thought they got all the try, no try decisions correct...that final one should have been a penalty try though because it was a penalty for a shoulder charge...no shoulder charge and foul and it would have been a certain try so can't understand why it wasn't a penalty try? Symonds was it? Never grounded the follow up, Johnstone got his foot under it and there was no clear evidence of it grounded....

Officials were pretty decent overall to be fair and thought we were worthy winners...thought at the time there was a case for a red card for Brough...cheap and nasty shot which resulted in us losing a player for the rest of the game...hardly fair...

Re: Wakey in cc : Fri Jun 24, 2016 9:21 am  

Similar to the league game,camped in their 20 for periods,unable to unlock the defence other than the one occasion.

Unlike the league game,the woeful defence,can't recall an opposition make so many clean breaks and tackle busts on that pitch.

Throw in some of the comical ball spills,and there you had it - a recipe for disaster.

Re: Wakey in cc : Fri Jun 24, 2016 9:35 am  

jools wrote:

I just want to know what sky showed the reasoning was behind the decision given by the VR. What did the VR say?

I don't think it was explained at all.

Re: Wakey in cc : Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:20 pm  

well done wakefield, totally deserved the win

team playing with confidence against one that is totally in pieces

Re: Wakey in cc : Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:31 pm  

upthecats wrote:

I thought they got all the try, no try decisions correct...that final one should have been a penalty try though because it was a penalty for a shoulder charge...no shoulder charge and foul and it would have been a certain try so can't understand why it wasn't a penalty try? Symonds was it? Never grounded the follow up, Johnstone got his foot under it and there was no clear evidence of it grounded....

Officials were pretty decent overall to be fair and thought we were worthy winners...thought at the time there was a case for a red card for Brough...cheap and nasty shot which resulted in us losing a player for the rest of the game...hardly fair...

Disagree with that, the Symonds no try was sent up as a try, so there had to be clear evidence he did not ground it rather than clear evidence he did. If it was sent up as no try I would agree. Not that it mattered as Wakey fully deserved the win. One thing for sure it would have been given for Leeds/Wigan/Saints.

I actually thought the ref was poor but consistent, allowed a very slow ruck and neither side were respecting the 10. But again Wakey deserved the win it was not down to the ref

Re: Wakey in cc : Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:24 am  

Jo Jumbuck wrote:

Think the correct decision should have been a penalty try, Gerry was fouled in the in goal area with no player to beat . Conners effort was a Try all day for me, It hit the try line before it rolled to the side line.

I believe the rule changed it can only be a penalty try if fouled in the act of scoring I think, stand to be corrected of course.