Joined: Oct 07 2004 Posts: 31955 Location: Glasgow, Scotland
W.F wrote:Is Phil even from Warrington? Sure I read he's from Leigh but is just based in Warrington? Was he a Wire fan?
Every time he's involved in one of our matches all we get from the opposition is "can't believe Bentham can ref Wire " and such. Watching the game back and even the commentator managed to throw in a sly dig saying something like "it's worth noting the video ref is Phil Bentham" after he disallowed a Huddersfield try.
oli30045 wrote:After watching the game on TV again, I think he got every decision correct. I'm sure that we'll get some bitter Wigan/Saints fans saying that we're watching through our primrose and blue tinted glasses, but he did well IMO.
the doublemovement was a try his arm never touched the ground but it doesnt matter
Joined: Dec 28 2002 Posts: 3555 Location: Warrington
W.F wrote:Is Phil even from Warrington? Sure I read he's from Leigh but is just based in Warrington? Was he a Wire fan?
Every time he's involved in one of our matches all we get from the opposition is "can't believe Bentham can ref Wire " and such. Watching the game back and even the commentator managed to throw in a sly dig saying something like "it's worth noting the video ref is Phil Bentham" after he disallowed a Huddersfield try.
He is a member of Warrington Referee Society but he is from Leigh. He always supported Leigh as a youngster.At a supporter's trust forum thingy (before the rule was changed) he said he found it funny that he couldn't ref Warrington yet could ref Leigh.
Saddened! wrote:They were genuine 50:50's if you ask me. A lot of people would have given the double movement try, including Justin Morgan. The obstruction one was a classic 'no try' for obstruction but they need to sharpen up the rules on that. It wasn't like Bridge was attempting to tackle the player with the ball, he went to tackle the dummy runner. That should IMO rule out obstruction, the penalty just rewarded Bridge for poor defending.
The Sporting Life write up has both the no tries for the Giants down as bad calls and picked out the knock on before the first try as a bad call too.
You need luck to win finals, this is no different.
sorry saddened but that's horseshit. This was a text book example of obstructing a defender, bridge didn't go to tackle anyone, he was part of the defensive line that was sliding towards the touchline followg the ball and the dummy runner ran into him, then realised he'd loved up and put his hands in the air, meanwhile we're left with two defenders and a big gap next to briers which the ball carrier then feinted towards wrong footing briers and catching him in two minds.
Tony Catsmith wrote:sorry saddened but that's horseshit. This was a text book example of obstructing a defender, bridge didn't go to tackle anyone, he was part of the defensive line that was sliding towards the touchline followg the ball and the dummy runner ran into him, then realised he'd loved up and put his hands in the air, meanwhile we're left with two defenders and a big gap next to briers which the ball carrier then feinted towards wrong footing briers and catching him in two minds.
Joined: Jun 04 2002 Posts: 15309 Location: huddersfudlia
i thought the calls against us especially were very harsh and in a normal SL game would probably have been given 8 times out of 10 but saying that it wasn't his fault that we lost but had we had more luck with the (lancashire) officials it could have been different
the Claret And Gold Machine is ready to roll
sunday September 1st 2013, when a dream became a reality!!
The Bridge 'taken out' one, that's a penalty all day long. You prevent him making a tackle, as a result you don't slide and you get caught on an overlap that wouldn't have existed, penalty.
The double movement I would've give in all honesty.
Joined: Apr 26 2005 Posts: 4190 Location: Under the thumb!
All I seem to have read both on the forums, and in the media, is how hard done to Huddersfield were.
Nowhere does there seem to be any mention of Kings 'no try' which I think could easily have gone our way. The possession that lead to Huddersfields first try came from a two man ball steal on Carvell. The possession that lead to Huddersfields second 'no try' came from Brett Hodgson fielding the ball in goal - watch it again and I'm pretty certain that he had one foot in the field of play when he took the ball on the run, and Huddersfield were clearly offside when the tap was taken. I have seen many references to Andersons knock-on when fielding his charge down - I saw it as coming off his toes. One media report, may have been the Telegraph, comments on how Bentham didn't look at the knock-on totally oblivious to the fact there were two more play the balls before Mathers scored.
Despite clearly being the better team and deserved winners, the blinkered view, not only from other fans but parts of the media too, is starting to leave a slightly sour taste in the mouth.
Eddie Hemmings said not wrote:"Remember last time they were here, the Huddersfield Giants, they lost to a Luke Walsh drop goal. He's only scored four drop goals in his St Helens career has Luke Walsh and each and every one of them have been scored by Luke Walsh"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
" and such. Watching the game back and even the commentator managed to throw in a sly dig saying something like "it's worth noting the video ref is Phil Bentham" after he disallowed a Huddersfield try.
