Crusaders RL v St. Helens

[dreamcatcher37]

It's hard to defend

I think his reasoning was that it was not a knock on, the ball went backwards, player lost control then re-gained the ball, but if this happened in open play surely it would have been a penalty?

[goldcard]

Benefit of doubt to the big name club , erm, erm, attacking side?

[amm]

Benefit of doubt to the big name club , erm, erm, attacking side?

you can talk...yer int top 4 now, so get the same

[saintfrank]

Benefit of doubt to the big name club , erm, erm, attacking side?

What about Westwood last night...never a try if he had gone to the screen, never mind they all count

meant we needed 21 clear tonight, instead of 14..lol

[JohnM]

I'd like to put in a good word for Saints.

Its good to see them up there in their traditional league position..

.....playing second fiddle to Wigan.

[tonyXIII]

Benefit of doubt to the big name club , erm, erm, attacking side?

Nah! You were right first time.

[goldcard]

you can talk...yer int top 4 now, so get the same

I know, and one day we'll be despised just like Skints and the Pies have been, if it lasts.

Of course, Wezza has been speeding up the process, sadly.... :glare:

[SonikGav]

Looks like Nobby is learning what its like when your not part of one of the 'chosen' few teams....hang on a min...he's at Crusaders. Surely the RFL wants them in the play off to prove their a success just like Catalans. Why are all these decisions going against them?

2 Weeks in a row, Brian cant be happy.

[bewareshadows]

I think that game exposed 3 flaws within the RL rule book.

First why when held is called and then the ball passed almost at the same time is it a scrum?

Surely the ref can blow and tell them to play the ball where held was called.

Secondly, why when a ball hits an injured player is it a scrum and 6 more to the attacking side?

Thirdly there needs to be a rewording of the knock on rule. We thought it was a knock on and all in the house where stunned when it came up TRY. From what was said on the TV, the reason for the try is that contact with the ball was never lost. We watched it back and it's true he hs it in his hand, then it slides under his arm to his other arm, at no point is there space between body and ball and then he brings it back to the try line with his other hand.

I can't argue with that, but when the ball initially slides out of his hand and under his arm, this is out of his control, it only stays in contact by pure luck. I'm sure some element of control can be written into the rules.

From my understanding of the knock on rule the ball must leave the player and hit the ground or another player in a forward motion. In this case the ball never left the player but more by luck than judgement and it was only because he was already on the ground that there was no seperation between ball and arm.

[Brigg Rover]

I think that game exposed 3 flaws within the RL rule book.

First why when held is called and then the ball passed almost at the same time is it a scrum?

Surely the ref can blow and tell them to play the ball where held was called.

Secondly, why when a ball hits an injured player is it a scrum and 6 more to the attacking side?

Thirdly there needs to be a rewording of the knock on rule. We thought it was a knock on and all in the house where stunned when it came up TRY. From what was said on the TV, the reason for the try is that contact with the ball was never lost. We watched it back and it's true he hs it in his hand, then it slides under his arm to his other arm, at no point is there space between body and ball and then he brings it back to the try line with his other hand.

I can't argue with that, but when the ball initially slides out of his hand and under his arm, this is out of his control, it only stays in contact by pure luck. I'm sure some element of control can be written into the rules.

From my understanding of the knock on rule the ball must leave the player and hit the ground or another player in a forward motion. In this case the ball never left the player but more by luck than judgement and it was only because he was already on the ground that there was no seperation between ball and arm.

I can't quite belive what I am about to say but, Shaun McRae was 100% correct when he said in any other part of the field the ref would have blown up for a knock on and a scrum down. Even if there is no "seperation" of the ball from his arm (which I have grave doubts over having seen the TV angle from the back) then it is apparently now acceptable to put the ball on the ground and roll it over the tryline (as long as there is no seperation).

Just like the Lee Smith try in the grand final, these idiots in the Video booth are ruining good (and great games in terms of the grand final). They are also the reason I will not pay good money to go and watch RFL events like the CC final, the Grand Final or International games nowadays. Especially as that completely muppet Cummings will be on to justify why Ian Smith was right!

[Old Frightful]

I can't quite belive what I am about to say but, Shaun McRae was 100% correct when he said in any other part of the field the ref would have blown up for a knock on and a scrum down. Even if there is no "seperation" of the ball from his arm (which I have grave doubts over having seen the TV angle from the back) then it is apparently now acceptable to put the ball on the ground and roll it over the tryline (as long as there is no seperation).

You've beat me to it BR. Where I watched the game last night, you couldn't hear the commentary so I missed what McRae said, but that was to be my comment on the matter. You can accidentally kick the ball forward at a play the ball, knock it a yard backwards from a high kick, and yet it will almost certainly be deemed a knock on. I can accept benefit of the doubt, if it looks like a try but you can't be 100% certain, but this wasn't even close.

As a sport, we led the way with using technology in situations like this, and then we have some muppet confounding everybody watching by ignoring the evidence available to him.

Maybe it's time to employ three video referees and let them have a mini jury. Granted it may take a few seconds longer, but it's worth trying if it will eradicate farcical decisions like the Roby "try".

[deluded pom?]

I can't argue with that, but when the ball initially slides out of his hand and under his arm, this is out of his control, it only stays in contact by pure luck. I'm sure some element of control can be written into the rules.

I always thought there already was a reference to the player having control of the ball, when grounding it for a try, in the rule book. Having said that I've lost count of the number of tries I've seen awarded by a VR where the player has obviously lost control of the ball and it's just pure luck that he has a finger nail on the ball when it hits the ground. In my eyes this scenario is a no try as the player has lost any control of the ball that he had. 20 metre tap restart to the defending team.

[Ullman]

You've beat me to it BR. Where I watched the game last night, you couldn't hear the commentary so I missed what McRae said, but that was to be my comment on the matter. You can accidentally kick the ball forward at a play the ball, knock it a yard backwards from a high kick, and yet it will almost certainly be deemed a knock on. I can accept benefit of the doubt, if it looks like a try but you can't be 100% certain, but this wasn't even close.

As a sport, we led the way with using technology in situations like this, and then we have some muppet confounding everybody watching by ignoring the evidence available to him.

Maybe it's time to employ three video referees and let them have a mini jury. Granted it may take a few seconds longer, but it's worth trying if it will eradicate farcical decisions like the Roby "try".

Curry's window?

[Old Frightful]

Curry's window?

No, my neighbour's actually. The day he had Sky installed coupled with his ill fitting vertical blinds was a great day for me. Sadly I was arrested late on last night after falling from my ladders...

[Ullman]

No, my neighbour's actually. The day he had Sky installed coupled with his ill fitting vertical blinds was a great day for me. Sadly I was arrested late on last night after falling from my ladders...

Taking eight cans of Stella up there with you was pushing your luck to be honest.

[bewareshadows]

Taking eight cans of Stella up there with you was pushing your luck to be honest.

I think the touch down senarios really need a tidy up.

Yes the call last night was suprising but not unusual. Many a time players seam to loose the ball over the line only to have a finger touch it as it hits the deck and so try is awarded. Or when a try is scored by the fore arm or elbow. Even the belly button on occasion.

Rather than looking at 40/20's and the size of the ball or position of the posts, why not get the basic clear for everyone then we can look at other areas of the game.

The old chestnut of scrums also springs to mind.

[bewareshadows]

Any way, not really much chat about the game with everyone focusing on a 2 second incident.

I thought that Saints looked very shaky in that first half, we just seamed to lack any go forward. There were plently of people wanting to offload the ball, but no one was doing it very well. We were also our own worst enemies in terms of giving away masses of penalties.

On serveral occasions I found myself shouting get off him at the TV just second before the ref penalised us. As for crusaders, I thought their running with the ball was alot stronger. They seamed to get their head through the tacklers on many occasion and even before the Roby incident I thought we rode our luck and had fortune on or side that the crusaders lacked that finese on the last play.

The second half we seamed to stop the daft penalties which reduced the crusaders chances of making easy yards and with 20 minutes to go the Saints attacking line started to look alot more organised.

At first I thought it was an error toplay an ill puletula, but his class shone through in the 2nd half and he gave us some good go forward and was hard to put down.

I thought Foster had another great game for us, his positional play seams to make it really difficult for teams to pass around him.

On the other hand after thinking Meli is much better at centre than wing, last night I had to reassess that. Meli was stood in the Wrexham line more than the Saints line, and whilst you may sometimes expect to see a winger over run their centre, I've never seen a centre over run their inside man as often or by such a long distance as Meli did last night.

On an alternative note, there seamed to be no MOM award last night. Anyone know who got MOM?

ROby and Wilkin where both interviewed but no mention of MOM. I personally thought that sckostophiere (sorry for spelling) caused no end of trouble for the Saints and would have been my pick.

[bewareshadows]

I forgot to mention in the post above given that we lost 3 players in that game we held up quite well. In fact the last 20 minutes we looked better with a novice playmaker and a 2nd rower than we did in the first 40 with 2 play makers.

I think Lomax may make a name for himself there, he won't have the hype of eastmond but he has some quality at half back.

Edited August 22, 2010 by bewareshadows