Quote ="TURFEDOUT"Sorry,but youre wrong - below is from the rule book. Losing possession 8. – intentionally – accidentally A tackled player shall not intentionally part with the ball other than by bringing it into play in the prescribed manner. If, after being tackled, he accidentally loses possession, a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth ">play-the-ball.'" So you're saying that every time a player loses the ball following a tackle, a scrum must be called instantly? No advantage played under any conditions? Refs have been getting it wrong for years, then. Edit: Actually, having read the notes to the rules on losing the ball, it's not abundantly clear what should happen when the ball is released voluntarily rather than accidentally. Also, without reviewing the footage, it's not clear whether the momentum of the tackle was continuous or whether Blaymire was stopped dead and then dragged. If the former, the tackle wasn't complete until he stopped moving; if the latter, it should have been a penalty to Wakefield.

Quote ="TURFEDOUT"Sorry,but youre wrong - below is from the rule book. Losing possession 8. – intentionally – accidentally A tackled player shall not intentionally part with the ball other than by bringing it into play in the prescribed manner. If, after being tackled, he accidentally loses possession, a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth ">play-the-ball.'" So you're saying that every time a player loses the ball following a tackle, a scrum must be called instantly? No advantage played under any conditions? Refs have been getting it wrong for years, then. Edit: Actually, having read the notes to the rules on losing the ball, it's not abundantly clear what should happen when the ball is released voluntarily rather than accidentally. Also, without reviewing the footage, it's not clear whether the momentum of the tackle was continuous or whether Blaymire was stopped dead and then dragged. If the former, the tackle wasn't complete until he stopped moving; if the latter, it should have been a penalty to Wakefield.

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.

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

this has already been covered, try reading again or look at a rule book

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.