• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chris22

  1. The Mirror and the Peacock

    I'd be all for 4 games per day next year. 6 Super League matches + a Newcastle Thunder game to open the Saturday + a Championship fixture to open the Sunday (maybe Bradford vs Leigh if both sides are in that division in 2019). Could hopefully attract more locals and a decent following from two of the best-supported non-SL clubs. Or alternatively, how about trying to get an NRL game over here?
  2. It's official - a 4 year contract. As a Saints fan, I'd love to see him go up against Barba next year, but know it probably won't happen. Generally, the side with the best full back dominates the league, so a huge boost for Wigan.
  3. Hardaker to Wigan

    Mind you, this means that we are now less than two years away from the next Zak Hardaker "I'm really sorry, I know I've made another mistake etc." interview on Sky Sports!
  4. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Hull's academy...
  5. 1800 at Widnes last night

    Which did happen in 1997, but I believe only lasted for 1 year
  6. 1800 at Widnes last night

    Reports on Twitter that pre-sales are at 4,500 for Castleford. Not clear if that includes the 1,500 sold by St Helens, but I would assume so. Thankfully, older stadiums like Castleford's don't highlight the empty spaces like the newer stadiums.
  7. The referee not dishing out a card earlier does not give a blank cheque for players to do as they please. I agree that Talupapa should have seen yellow, but the players are responsible for their own actions and in my opinion, it's a cop out for players to hide behind that for their own ill discipline and lack of self control.
  8. Agreed with hindsight, and edited accordingly.
  9. Both Hull FC and Featherstone should be heavily fined for this by the RFL. Both sides conduct has been disgraceful.
  10. Obstruction calls always seem to be made based on a freeze frame. In my opinion, it's similar to double movement in that it can only properly be assessed in full speed.
  11. Denver Test - Ticket Sales

    Whilst I am hugely in favour of this match, I still can't understand why we are playing this in a stadium with a larger capacity than Old Trafford, and why all areas of the stadium are open! And this is in a country where rugby league is unheard of. Logically, would it not have made sense to play this in Toronto where there is at least some appreciation of the sport, then expand further in to Canada before going on to the USA?
  12. Championship standard grounds Ahem...
  13. One of the best games of the season last night, ultimately won by two breathtaking Warrington tries, yet all some people on here want to talk about is whether a penalty should have been awarded, or not awarded, at one or two out of several hundred play the balls in the entire match. The game went backwards and forwards, with the lead switching hands on a few occasions, there were great tries, great defence, (at times) a full stadium, some great individual performances, maybe the emergence of a talented young player, two great comebacks and a match where the outcome was not certain until the very end. Yet many focus on one or two play the balls. Why?
  14. And Catalans win it! Gigot with the DG!
  15. Huge chance for Catalans to win it now. One set on the Hull line, one minute to play!
  16. Two Things to Scrap Right Now!

    I'll apologise in advance for the lengthy post... It's a tricky scenario. If we get rid of the video referee, the spectacle will vastly improve in my opinion. But more decisions will be incorrect. For example, one of Leeds' tries would have been disallowed for obstruction against Hull last week when one video referee replay clearly demonstrated no obstruction. In the Grand Final last year, Leeds would have been awarded two tries incorrectly as James Child failed to spot a tiny knock on in the grounding by Kallum Watkins and a push in the back by Briscoe. I am not critical of James Child for sending both decisions up as tries as on first viewing they did appear to be tries and it was almost impossible to spot these errors at full speed. But without the video referee, the game would have been over by half time, incorrectly so, and there would have been outrage with many speculating that but for these decisions, Castleford could have fought back. So, if we are to get rid of the video ref, then we need to accept that our sport is fast-paced and errors will be made. Realistically, that won't happen fans and coaches will blame the referee for their own teams shortcomings and would cry out that "this wouldn't happen if we had the video ref" and "we've got the technology so why don't we use it." I therefore don't think it's realistic to expect the video referee to be scrapped. But what are we to do? We have a few options: 1. Get rid of the video referee and implement a challenge system. In theory, I think this is a good idea. One challenge per team to a try/no try decision. If it's successful, the team keeps the challenge, if it's unsuccessful, they lose it. For this to work, there would need to be a neutral burden on the video referee, and I would also allow them to check for forward passes. Benefit of the doubt to go with the referee's initial call. By turning this towards the players, you could also reduce dissent. If they are so confident the call is wrong, then challenge it. Referees would have to be encouraged to allow play to go on to a natural stopping point though if there was a possible obstruction or knock on etc. This system wouldn't be perfect though. In rare situations, there can be a potential grounding at one end and the other side could pick up the ball and break away with their momentum being stopped. It's rare, but it did happen in the Wigan vs Hull play off semi final in 2016. Also, teams may challenge things spuriously. The joy of a clear-cut, match winning try could be taken away by a side desperately using a challenge in the hope that the video referee can find a fault. I think it may be worthwhile running a trial maybe at the Summer Bash, or at Toronto games? 2. Reduce the video referee to in goal decisions only. So no more checking of the restart or for foul play. For restarts, I don't have a problem with it. Foul play, I'm not so sure. The positive that referees can ask for the video referees input for foul play is that more on-field sanctions are being handed out. Without this input, more players would remain on the field where they should. Again, the problem is the difference between TV and non-TV games. It would also reduce legitimate frustrations with probably technically correct obstruction calls, that just don't fit with how we want the game to be played. But again, we must expect more incorrect decisions. 3. Keep the status quo. The problems with this are well-versed. Games lasting over 2 hours are a real bugbear and make the sport far less enjoyable. I enjoy games far more where decisions are made live and where you don't have to look at the ref to see if you can celebrate a try. But, for tricky decisions such as the Greg Minikin no try last night, it is perfectly reasonable to use the video referee because to expect accurate calls where a player dives for the corner, with four defenders surrounding him and the grounding/player being in touch is instantaneous to the human is unrealistic. We don't want the referees guessing on such decisions. The video referee is a tricky problem with no obvious answer, which is why I think it's going to stay as it is for the foreseeable future, however frustrating that may be.
  17. Widnes are 26-0 against Coventry after 15 minutes. This could end up at 100!
  18. Thomas Minns Drug Test fail

    Hull KR have now released a statement:
  19. Begin your speculating! I wonder if this will actually be something major, or something underwhelming as with the majority of major announcements
  20. Selfish amateurs 17 - 16 Angels of the north Who'd have tipped that one!
  21. I don't know the agreement between Bradford and Proper Sport, but their statement provides an indication: Therefore, by Bradford's own admission, the home club has to provide permission to stream the match. Workington are therefore within their rights to decline permission. Some may disagree with the decision, but it is Workington's prerogative to say no. The statement continues: Although the statement is worded terribly, and doesn't recognise that short-sighted is not one word, they are entitled to express their disappointment. The statement should have been left at this point. But Chalmers, clearly with steam coming from his ears, as he typed furiously at his computer keyboard before prematurely clicking "publish", in all his foolishness decided to continue: I'll try not to labour the point about the butchering of the English language...But Bradford earlier admitted that the decision to broadcast is Workington's. They clearly will not be privy to the full reasons for the decision, yet decry Workington. Chalmers also seems not to understand the concept of irony. For a chairman of the Bradford Bulls to describe a decision and or management of another club as "amateur and completely selfish" is laughable. I did actually laugh out loud at this part of the statement. And he also seems to think he can speak on behalf of other rugby league fans. And from what I've seen, nobody aside from him has expressed this opinion. Whilst I can accept disappointment at the decision, to attempt to undermine a club's future or ambitions as a consequence is unacceptable. Again, Chalmers has transferred his opinion, not only to all rugby league fans, but this time to all sports fans. Somehow I very much doubt that cricket, ice hockey, tennis fans etc are aware of this, nor care for that matter. To give Chalmers credit, he does sign off the statement in his own name, leaving fans in little doubt that it is he who is the boorish oaf leading an allegedly professional club, rather than signing the statement off as being from "Bradford Bulls". However, for Bradford to top this off with misleading, childish Twitter polls as a pathetic means of points-scoring does little to enhance their already tarnished reputation. By comparison, Workington's statement is proportionate and logical. The interesting points I have taken from this include: For Bradford to encourage abuse to be aimed at a community club, reliant on the goodwill of volunteers and local people is an outrage. Such intimidatory tactics are also unacceptable, and must surely be against RFL rules. If I was in charge of Workington Town I would not allow Chalmers to enter the stadium tomorrow until a written apology is published on the Bradford website. And if I was in charge of another League 1 club, I would be tempted also not to allow Bradford to stream their away match, in solidarity with Workington. League 1 clubs rely on a lot of goodwill and Workington could potentially be damaged by such recklessness. This surprises me considering the goodwill the entire sport showed Bradford, particularly bucket collections by clubs (including League 1 clubs) to keep the club afloat. In summary, Bradford's conduct is this matter has been childish, unprofessional and damaging to their reputation, good name and incredibly loyal supporters.
  22. I haven't seen the game so can only provide a limited comment, but if you are winning by 19 points within around 30 minutes remaining, it's hard to blame the referee if you lose. Positively for Catalans, a few weeks ago they would have been incapable of even building such a lead, so seem to be showing some signs of improvement.
  23. RLWC 2021 Venues

    The game at St Helens drew the 3rd largest crowd in the Group Stages for a match that did not involve a host nation, with a crowd of 14,137. It was only marginally bettered by Warrington (New Zealand vs Samoa) which also had a crowd within the 14,000's and Leeds (New Zealand vs PNG) with a crowd of 18,000+.
  24. Commonly Misunderstood Rules

    The number of people who sit near me are that one eyed they don't seem to understand any rule! The worst offenders are not knowing that you have a minute to take a kick before time off is called, not knowing that the touchjudges have to be in position before time off can be called at a kick off and not knowing a 20m tap must be controlled if the ball is thrown back. One rule that I would like clarification on myself. When there is a possible obstruction and an attacker surrenders, sky tell us this negates a penalty. I don' think that's a rule and just has started occurrng recently. Can anyone shed any light?