He has sent it to Shaun Wane.
He has sent it to Shaun Wane.
Learned comment from The Don
Just had an interesting conversation with a professional coach though. He agrees that the try should have been given but also by the letter of the law, Percival's try could have been disallowed. Apparently the receiving team (in this case Tierney) once he has jumped for the ball, shouldn't be touched. Bentham went around all the clubs pre-season to explain this. That's why Cummings said what he did because he was being a pedant and following the rules to the letter. No one agrees with it, just pointing out some context.
Have to laugh when one incident comes under scrutiny. If Bentham had applied the letter of the law appropriately throughout the game and penalised Wigan as he ought to have, Saints would have had the game won long before Percival went over. He allowed Wigan to play the game they needed to in order to compete and denied Saints the opportunity to profit from Wigan's lack of discipline.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When did it become illegal to challenge or contest a high ball then?
And did they tell anyone about it?
RHINO balls are like Bon Jovi albums - Slippery When Wet
ST HELENS RFC - Back in business, Thank you Justin Holbrook.
"I turn the TV volume down because these comedians on SKY are speaking a load of rubbish. They're making a simple game complicated with their long-winded, pointless jargon". Kevin Ashcroft
...I think it's a fair slogan for the World Cup. If you come to England and you don't like the weather, TOUGH TITTIES!!! Andrew Voss, PNG vs Samoa, 4:Nov:13
Whilst I accept what is said. If I was being pedantic and refereed to the rules then there would very rarely be a legitimate point scored in RL.
My point being when was the last time that a player regained his feet and placed the ball on the floor and played said ball with his foot?
Funny how because 2 men IMO legitimately contested a ball and one got the better of the other whilst brushing him in the air it should've resulted in the try being disallowed according to Cummings & because it was against Wigan
Tackling someone in the air i agree with, pushing them before they jump for the ball, fair enough. The purpose of the rule is to protect the defending player from being hit and spun into a dangerous position, similar to a spear tackle.
Two players jumping and contesting for the ball, there is bound to be some contact. Again, common sense has to prevail and benefit of the doubt to the attacking side.
The other point is that we as fans don't know the rules fully. Bar Walmsley, most of our forwards and outside backs drop to the ground on contact looking for a quick play the ball. It's practically a surrender type of tackle. They are coached to do that. Because of that the ref goes through his calls of "move" "stand" etc and it basically gives the defending team much longer to hold down and slow the ruck down. They can't do that when someone tries to make metres after contact because they have to wrestle said player to the floor. It's hard to explain on here and I'm not articulating myself well but Wigan are very clever with it. They know this and they utilise it time and again against us.
James Childs would have caned Wigan last night but every referee is different. Wigan knew what they could get away with last night.
I agree entirely. I posted the exact same on the Adam Walker thread:
http://www.redvee.net/forums/showthr...ker-Gone/page3
You're right in the ruling but I thought we went away from that slightly last night which is what I found frustrating. I don't normally say to much about it for that reason but I thought we countered it the last 2/3 times we've come up against them. We played slightly differently last night and deserved a couple more penalties than we got IMO. Obviously not easy to tell from behind the West Stand but that was my initial reaction to that.
Nothing wrong with the try as you say, he was intentionally going for the ball all the way. It's a fine line but Percy for the right side of it for me.
Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
V
Funny how the rules or interpretations change over the years. I remember Steve Hampson getting dinged for raising his knees as he jumped to defuse a kick while playing for GB v Aus.
Just to add, I thought he was poor both ways to be honest. Couple of dubious calls against them in the second half as well for me but it is what it is.
Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
V
There were a couple of knock-on decisions that wrongly went our way, and I'm sure the piescum fans will harp on about this.
There were other decisions that went against us, like a blatant pie hand knocking the ball out of the grounded Saints player's (Amor?) hand and them getting a knock on. And I can think of 2 or 3 genuine high tackles from them that went unpunished.
But the biggest issue, and one which had a much, much bigger bearing on the entire match, was his persistent allowing of the pies to not only stand offside, but start charging out at us before the ball had been played, and letting them slow the PTB to a farcical level.
Can't remember which Goon player it was, but it was the end of our last set and it was a deep pass to Smith but it nearly got intercepted by a player who was about 5 metres off side. Bentham must have had sweat in his eyes to miss that one or it was one of the statuary Gimmy's for Wane.
Bloo** he** it was only a joke !! lol
Learned comment from The Don
Phil Bentham ................an apology for a ref (bit like Ben Thaler really!
It is impossible for Percy to have had less of an interest in the man. His head was in the sky constantly, no intention at all to play the man. None.
Cummins lost the plot.