Wellsy4HullFC

Do kids even know what broadcast TV is these days? Everything is streamed from on app. Many houses don't have a TV aerial anymore.

The hooter sounds at bang on the time I believe. It didn't used to, they used to wait until play had finished (including kicks).

Came to say exactly the same. This is exactly what I said would happen. Players would hang around the ruck pretending to be getting out the way. The refs don't know what to do about this it seems. It's a penalty for the ruck infringement. Simple as that.

Surely that's not legit?

Last comment on this from me. He's the relevant International Laws: SECTION 15 - PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if they: [snip] (i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game. In terms of law interpretations, the RFL don't publish this (or at least I can't find it), but the NRL do, and the RFL usually copies or is most certainly influenced by the NRL interpretation: "Dummy Half Passing Ball into Defending Player at Ruck Where a dummy half deliberately passes the ball into a defending player caught in and around the ruck who is not actively taking part in the play, such an act will be deemed to be contrary to the true spirit of the game and constitute misconduct under section 15(1)(i) of the Laws of the Game, and a penalty will be awarded against the attacking team. This does not in any way absolve a defender of his responsibilities to clear the ruck and the defending team will still be penalised if it is deemed that they are interfering with play." Unless the RFL are using a completely different interpretation that completely absolves the defender's responsibility to clear the ruck (which would be barmy), the referees got it wrong and have misinterpreted who is "actively" involved in the play to mean "intentionally". You can be actively involved without being intentionally involved. I rest my case, your honour

Err... Yes he was. In fact, he was not only given a chance, he was given a second chance through a Captain's Challenge.

They're meant to roll away and stay out of play. The ruck being quick is not an excuse got them to actively get up and in the way.

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.