Jump to content

Wellsy4HullFC

Coach
  • Posts

    11,359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Wellsy4HullFC last won the day on December 11 2021

Wellsy4HullFC had the most liked content!

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hull

Recent Profile Visitors

44,709 profile views

Wellsy4HullFC's Achievements

6.3k

Reputation

  1. I'd agree, but he'd no doubt go to another club and they'll suddenly become world beaters The hardest job in rugby league is this. Any coach who thinks they're worth their salt should take on this to see if they're as good as they think they are!
  2. The Friday overlap annoys me. I can't choose which game I want to watch and when I do, you know I'll end up not picking the most exciting one! Came in late on Friday so chose to watch Leigh v Leeds after HT scores. Always fun watching Leeds get beat, right?... Should have watched the Saints/Salford game! First World problems!
  3. I don't think that's true. For it to be a voluntary tackle, a player must play the ball without being called held. There doesn't need to be any tackler involved (hence the voluntary part). Example: I recall (whilst at Huddersfield) Stanley Gene getting penalised for throwing himself to the ground before making contact with the defenders and playing the ball as if he'd been tackled. I assume he was anticipating contact within that maneuver and attempting a quick PTB to catch them offside. It's the exact type of play the rule is designed to prevent.
  4. Unless we abolish the offside rule, it is imperative that we keep the voluntary tackle rule. Otherwise you'll see players in possession playing the ball randomly to trap players in offside positions (a bit like the "dumping" tactic in touch rugby). As for the deliberate knock on rule, could it possibly be that the interpretation may players who are actually in possession of the ball deliberating throwing it to the ground?
  5. Golden try, silver point. One potential issue (but not impossible to solve): if one team gets 3 penalties, then the other team gets a try, does the team that has the try immediately run despite being 2 points worse off? The answer should obviously be no, but the wording wouldn't agree and need tightening up.
  6. Why does everyone suggest 9s? It's never been successful.
  7. The protocol basically forgot to mention exceptions. The RFL are taking the blame off the ref, which is fine. In all of my reactions to the red card, I was never angry at the ref, I was angry at the RFL for this poorly executed new directive (and before anyone says "it wasn't poorly executed", it's easy to say when your side hasn't been affected and screwed of a fair shot at winning when they were arguably on top, not to mention the knock on effects). I hope this response from the RFL gives referees the confidence to include a little more common sense in their judgements.
  8. "This has highlighted a lack of clarity in the procedures regarding head on head contact, which left the officials at Friday’s game in an invidious position. The section of the Framework relating to head-on-head contact will now be amended, emphasising that it applies only to initial contact. Once the mechanics of the tackle become more fluid, officials are able to use their knowledge and game-understanding to mitigate the sanction, to reflect the level of culpability of the tackler." I read that as they forgot to mention what doesn't count, so the referee followed direct protocol, and now they're "debugging" their protocol. I don't think any referee would have given that if they felt it wasn't protocol. Like I said before, I think all the talk of head injuries has created a fear of not punishing head contact, so if in doubt get a card out. I'm pretty sure that ref wouldn't have pulled a card out if he thought he could avoid it.
  9. Not so much a referee error as a referee directive error. The referee followed protocol, but the protocol was not written correctly. Starting to sound very much like the ending of Four Lions. "The report makes crystal clear, the police shot the right man, but the wrong man exploded."
  10. Didn't ignore anything that happened involving the Hull players though.
  11. I hope they learn from this. There's been such a dominating narrative about preventing head injury that the referee has been too afraid to use common sense. I still fear for next year with even tighter rules. And the disparity between our rules and the international rules will seem greater.
  12. As good as it is that the RFL have acknowledged they have made an error in their protocol, it's no consolation to us. "Sorry we f*cked up and cost you any chance of winning when the game was evenly contested. Our bad. Now, here's 4 charges for your players..."
  13. Hard to compare to football though. It's just everywhere. Good to see London putting in some effort to build support in a decent ground. They might go down, but puts them in good stead to go back up in the near future.
  14. Yes, usually because something has been missed, not because something has been seen.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.