Didn't see the game but it seems this is mainly about supporters ignorance? Of course this isn't to detract from referees just getting things wrong - we all know they do that from time to time. /> Why don't people ask the question about the laws first, rather than assuming that a ref is bent, or corrupt or incompetent or the like? Do they really think they know the rules and laws better than qualified referees?Better to be informed and maybe learn a little, rather than open ones gob and come across as an incompetent and ignorant moaner. Still, this is Rugby League and our staunch dyed-in-the-wool supporters seem to want to stake a claim on the lions share of Britains sporting ignorance........... To answer the question posed by someone - the guy who caught the ball in the in-goal area, the ball having been touched in flight but not having touched the ground, I would have thought the correct call was play on and this would be due to the ball being touched in flight. ie he either runs the ball out or gets tackled in the in-goal area, in which case a drop-out would be the result. That is if I have understood the question properly and understood the laws properly too! Is this what happened?

Didn't see the game but it seems this is mainly about supporters ignorance? Of course this isn't to detract from referees just getting things wrong - we all know they do that from time to time. /> Why don't people ask the question about the laws first, rather than assuming that a ref is bent, or corrupt or incompetent or the like? Do they really think they know the rules and laws better than qualified referees?Better to be informed and maybe learn a little, rather than open ones gob and come across as an incompetent and ignorant moaner. Still, this is Rugby League and our staunch dyed-in-the-wool supporters seem to want to stake a claim on the lions share of Britains sporting ignorance........... To answer the question posed by someone - the guy who caught the ball in the in-goal area, the ball having been touched in flight but not having touched the ground, I would have thought the correct call was play on and this would be due to the ball being touched in flight. ie he either runs the ball out or gets tackled in the in-goal area, in which case a drop-out would be the result. That is if I have understood the question properly and understood the laws properly too! Is this what happened?

Quote ="Andy Gilder"Correct decision, but I think what someone was getting at earlier in the thread was that when challenged why the hooter had gone when he'd stopped the clock, Bentham clearly said to Briers (I think) that he hadn't stopped the clock. /> It was obvious from the tv coverage that he had and the timekeepers had missed it, so why the need for him to tell a porkie about it?'" Maybe he was trying to make the distinction between him signalling that the clock should be stopped and the actual stopping of the clock. He did go on to make that point more clearly by saying that he wasn't responsible for the timekeeping.

Quote ="Andy Gilder"Correct decision, but I think what someone was getting at earlier in the thread was that when challenged why the hooter had gone when he'd stopped the clock, Bentham clearly said to Briers (I think) that he hadn't stopped the clock. /> It was obvious from the tv coverage that he had and the timekeepers had missed it, so why the need for him to tell a porkie about it?'" Maybe he was trying to make the distinction between him signalling that the clock should be stopped and the actual stopping of the clock. He did go on to make that point more clearly by saying that he wasn't responsible for the timekeeping.

Quote ="Andy Gilder"Correct decision, but I think what someone was getting at earlier in the thread was that when challenged why the hooter had gone when he'd stopped the clock, Bentham clearly said to Briers (I think) that he hadn't stopped the clock. /> It was obvious from the tv coverage that he had and the timekeepers had missed it, so why the need for him to tell a porkie about it?'" Taking the conversation as a whole, I'm sure the point he was making was that he didn't, doesn't and can't stop the clock on account of him not being the timekeeper. I don't think he intended to suggest he had not given the signal to the timekeepers.

Quote ="Andy Gilder"Correct decision, but I think what someone was getting at earlier in the thread was that when challenged why the hooter had gone when he'd stopped the clock, Bentham clearly said to Briers (I think) that he hadn't stopped the clock. /> It was obvious from the tv coverage that he had and the timekeepers had missed it, so why the need for him to tell a porkie about it?'" Taking the conversation as a whole, I'm sure the point he was making was that he didn't, doesn't and can't stop the clock on account of him not being the timekeeper. I don't think he intended to suggest he had not given the signal to the timekeepers.

hmmmm but if the ref had gone to stop the clock then the ball is dead, hooter goes to signal full time, should he not have allowed the scrum to be taken and blow full time after the next tackle/dead ball?



It happens with pens. If a team is awarded a pen and then the hooter goes afterwards they can still take the pen. They can kick to touch, take the tap and then play on until a tackle is complete or the ball is dead either through scoring/knocking on etc

Quote ="crucrucrusaders"That is a joke in itself and if you are a fan of any other sport looking in you'd find it quite unbelievable.'" /> Several prominent PL referees are Liverpool fans. It's not unknown.

Quote ="crucrucrusaders"That is a joke in itself and if you are a fan of any other sport looking in you'd find it quite unbelievable.'" /> Several prominent PL referees are Liverpool fans. It's not unknown.