Did Gough make a mistake in the "can't Captains Challenge" incident (Williams' almost-try) with 2:56 remaining in the first half against the Tigers Round 5? Is that and other referring indiscretions - basically orchestrating thee game - why Gough has been dropped for Round 6? And the Moses warning letter is a smokescreen to cover up an awful refereeing performance?
At least, how are we to interpret the Captains Challenge rule? Has an inconsistency in it just been unearthed? I'm interested in clear expositions of how the following chain of reasoning is WRONG. That is, that I am wrong and the ref got it all right
Context: Williams has picked up a loose ball, ran 30-40m, and got close to line the Tigers line before being set upon by three Tigers defenders. Williams gets up to play the ball and Korisau (sp?) comes from behind and knocks the ball out. Agreed facts.
- Gough tells Moses that because he had "not ruled the tackle complete" it's a lost ball. That he won't win a challenge. This seems to suggest Gough is saying Moses cannot challenge a decision to "play on"? But if Gough has not called tackle complete nor has he ruled play on?
- Both Ryles and Moses in the press conference say they suspect Williams will have been called for a double movement if he dived over to score. I cannot attach the photos (getting a "file too large" error) but Williams' ball-carrying arm AND the ball touch the ground and at least one Tiger (Doihei) has his hands on Williams at that point. Freeze frame the footage to verify. So as best I can tell a double movement was in fact in play? Also Williams is 100% steadying to play the ball: the ball has been swapped from right to left arm while getting up and his right foot is outstretched in a play the ball not diving forward stance.
- Now look at the rules for Captains Challenge below. There was a change in possession resulting in a structured restart (scrum; Tigers feed), which CAN be challenged. Also look at the rules for when a player is tackled Williams satisfied both conditions A and D
My interpretation is that Gough failed to call held as required. Note if it was a surrender tackle, which the "sole responsibility of the referee to identify", he would have identified it. I think Gough then confused himself that it was a play on rather than a structured restart condition.
Note that IF Gough's reasoning was solid here, we would NOT be seeing strips identified by Captains Challenge?
Replies
Gough 100% stuffed the tackle/held call up, which happens. That's annoying but forgivable.
But him refusing the challenge, that's doubling down on a call he would have known was wrong. That's why he's been benched this week.
If he'd just let the challenge happen it would have been corrected and no one would be talking about it now.
He deserves the loss of duties this weekend.
Refs need to front the media like the coaches do
They'd spend hours explaining all their errors
Annesley used to do a weekly 45-60 min discussion. We have to wonder why V'Landys nixed that?
Prof. Daz you can screenshot your images and then upload them via the edit button. Screenshots are much smaller files.
Second photo shows Tigers #7 steadying to assume a marker position (look at his back right foot is now flat on ground). Williams is getting up (note his left shoulder position is raising).
Good idea, Kurupt. First photo has the Tigers #7 with his hands on Williams who has both his ball carrying arm and the ball on the ground. Thus, grounded and hands on player, 2 of the 4 conditions identifying "tackled".
What is worse about this is it should have been a sinbin considering the momentum Parra had and if a quick play the ball we likely score.
It was a professional foul every day of the week
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next