Wellsy4HullFC

Who has even suggested it did? It's because it was such a poor interpretation of the rules that affects the game itself that I'm unhappy about it. The ruck is a mess and this makes it even worse.

That's just whataboutism. There are loads of things that were missed, or where difficult to judge at the time or were close calls. This isn't one of them. It's the ramifications for the game itself (not the match) that bothers me about this one. It's like when they gave a red card for an accidental head clash a few years ago. It's the wrong interpretation being made by the decision makers.

But he was obstructed Are we just going to continue to pretend he wasn't stood up in the ruck blocking the passing options to the kicker?

But why are we judging the legitimacy of the pass before the legitimacy of the attempt to clear the ruck? That's my argument. How can we come to the conclusion that it was okay for him to be in the way or that he wasn't deliberately in the way? It sets a precedent that is okay. The second perceived offence cannot happen without the first. It's completely backwards logic and I think the idea of the spirit of the game law has been misapplied.

But they shouldn't have to. The ruck is a mess because of things like this and if the refs did their job, players wouldn't be trying to point it out. Hull actually got pinged for it plenty of times with six agains, so it's not like they continually got away with it. It was poor from Hull and rightly pinged. Players need to either control the ruck better, get out of the way quicker or stay out of the way. If not, they're offside.

Yes, you have (and have just done it again). You've completely glossed over him being in the way of the ruck by excusing it as happening every game like that's okay. You cannot stand up and get in the way of the ruck. It's offside interference. If you think it happens every game, then that is surely the bigger deal and understandable that a player has taken exception to it? It's only a con if the act is pretending something that hasn't happened has happened (ie diving). If someone goes down like they've been shot after a high tackle, you don't just ignore the high tackle and penalise the player. The initial act is still the offence. Luckley legitimately put himself in the way and reduced our attack and the ref did nothing. I'm all for players taking issue with that through demonstrating he's in the way. This is different to someone throwing it at a player on the ground not in the way. I don't see how you can't tell the difference. I'm not even going to go into your Lewis and Litten comparison because it's irrelevant victim thread drift.

I don't even know what this means. How else can Bourouh demonstrate that he can't make a pass to his player without throwing it into the obstructing player? I don't like how the burden seems to be on the attacking player not only to think about but also to have to get around the obstructing player. It should have been called up before he even made a pass.

This is my argument too. It seems ridiculous to throw out an entire season, the trust and confidence of the players and supporters both now and in the future, over bringing in a coach who (let's be honest) isn't exactly a GOAT. Mac has had some success, but he's also had some stinkers. If next year is awful, the club are in a very dangerous position as they'll have spaffed their final bit of trust with the fans after 2024 and 2026. It's very high risk for low reward. We'd have been better sticking with Cartwright, keeping the faith with the fans, being patient and building slowly. If Mac went somewhere else, so be it.

Your example is not equivocal. Bourouh never claimed he was fouled. If a dummy half runs at an offside marker and that marker (despite trying to get out of the way) prevents that player making progress, it's still an infringement. It's not cynical, it's tactical. They have the right to run there, the defender doesn't have the right to be there. In this situation, Luckley has no right to be in the way. Bourouh has the right to pass that way. It's a legitimate direction to pass. The defender should be getting punished here for interfering, and if it's not interference it should be play on. The whole "spirit of the game" part is ignoring one offence over punishing another.

I think you've glossed over what Luckley is doing completely. Luckley has no right to get up where he did. His getting up DOES interfere with play, and Bourouh should not have to step behind him to pass. It was the last tackle. He was getting the ball to the kicker. What Luckley was doing was to interfere at marker to slow down this pass, he's not stupid. It's intentional disguised as accident, and it's this nonsense at the play the ball that was supposed to be getting stamped out. Had he not been interfering and Bourouh launched it at him, I'd completely agree with you. But Bourouh has every right to take exception to him being in the way of his passing line. He shouldn't have to step out of an offside players way to make a play - that's why it's an offence. The referee shouldn't have been ignoring this. Him throwing it at him should be bringing to the referee's attention that he's in the way. This is different to him throwing it at a player that isn't in the way to try and get a penalty. I think the bigger issue is the player getting in the way going completely unpunished, not the player demonstrating that he's in the way.

I mean, they're allowed to stand in the ruck apparently!

I think the referees have totally misunderstood the point of the rule by making this judgement, and like you say it just gives defenders a reason to hang around the ruck and restrict play. I think an attacking player has every right to pass there if he's interfering. The point of the rule was to stamp out players throwing at players who weren't interfering. If you have a marker not square, are we saying a dummy half isn't allowed to run at them too?

But you've set a precedent here that it is okay to linger in the ruck and restrict play. You actually create more cynical play here by ignoring the root-cause. It's a logical flaw. If he wasn't directly interfering, it wouldn't have happened; and because he was directly interfering, it should have been a penalty before he even had chance to pass. The precedent set is that Bourouh has to ignore the interfering player and reduce his attacking options. Players learn they can linger in the ruck more, and that encourages more cynical play. I know you find it hard to discuss anything objectively when it comes to Rovers, as shown by your type of response here, so I'll probably leave it there with you unless you're wanting a discussion in good faith.

Kendall had a choice. He ignored the initial infringement for an interpretation that wasn't intended for that purpose. The fact both officials came to that conclusion is what concerns me because that ignores the hierarchy of offences at play. Why has the first offence (offside at the ruck that directly interferes with play) been considered okay?

But he shouldn't have lost, that's why I'm annoyed. The spirit of the game ruling is (or should be) to do with throwing at offside players who are not interfering in play in order to attempt a penalty, not for throwing at ones that are. The point was to stop players throwing at the marker on the floor, or someone behind them who isn't in line of passing. Luckley is stood directly in the ruck. It should have been a penalty before Bourouh even had chance to throw the ball. Him throwing the ball shouldn't even be considered ahead of the first offence. It's an awful awful interpretation.