dboy

Entirely possible. Should be a cracker.

Merely going on the notion that SL is constructed of the top 14 IMG-scoring clubs. Although it looks as though the SRD score will drop them out of the top 12, it may not drop them out of the top 14. I don't think I've seen anywhere where it's suggested the RFL can pick and choose which clubs are in SL, which is what you are suggesting.

A change to 14 teams will throw a spanner in the works...

Any tips for lottery numbers? If you can suggest 53 numbers, I'll pick the other 6.

Who are you fancying?

Sorry, yes, I was referring to the more common "downtown" rule for the team in possession. Ellery Hanley was known for loitering downfield on a change of possession, then getting on the end of a Wigan break to score.

Pretty sure it's a new phenomenomomomomomomom.

That doesn't justify the point you were trying, and failing, to make. 1 point = 1 point, however gained. I do hope Wire stick with Burgess as coach, and players such as Williams, Powell and Ratchford - they are doing the job that most of us are surely delighted with.

King - no, the penalty was for interference at the PTB. The SRD may have been in contact with King, but there was no interference with the PTB. Ryan - if you are offside and retreat behind the point of the PTB, you are then onside.

I was particularly fond of the penalty awarded to Wire when King dropped the ball cold, and the decision of offside against a retreating SRD player, 1 metre from his own goal line, when the PTB was on the 20 or 30m line. If you were offside at the PTB, once you retreat behind the PTB you are onside. They were both "fun" decisions, given at a time when it looked like Wire were going to lose.

What are you trying to say? Were the SRD penalties incorrectly awarded? If you're new to the game (I'm guessing you must be), whilst a try is worth 4 points, and a penalty (or a conversion) is worth 2 points, each point, however gained is worth...1 point.

Look, there you go, being wrong again! Have you learned nothing?

Your admission that you are most often wrong is appreciated.

I don't understand the relevance. What is your point? Are you saying SRDs penalties were unwarranted? Fair question - I was watching the other game until the last 30 mins. Or is your contention that Wire ARE actually a good team and a threat the Wakey/HFC in the race for the top 6?

I'm a Wakey fan and I doubt us or Hull FC are worrying about being chased down by Wire!! You needed the ref to beat the worst team in SL. I'm happy that it maintains the illusions of Wire being a big team, and that Sam Burgess is a coach though - that's fun. You can book your October holiday now (the players have), - you won't be troubling the Old Trafford scarf sellers.

That wasn't material to why he was GC'd. He had every right to get to his feet and get into defence. What else would you want him to do? He should not have been GC'd - SRD did not stop the game - the ref did.

I know what it's like to follow a team at the bottom of the pile - other teams get much more leeway against you. SRD were treated harshly there.

That last decision just shows the ref does not know the rules! The SRD player may have been offside at the PTB, but he had retreated behind that point* (he was on his own tryline FFS), and so is ONSIDE. *Edit - 10m behind the PTB (or tryline).

No, he said he was in the way behind the ruck.

Correct. If a team uses an injury to stop play, it's a GC, but the ref himself decided to stop play. Getting rubbed a bit here are Salford.

I thought/wished for the same.

Nope. The penalty was for interference, not for holding down. There was no interference to the PTB - King dropped the ball irrespective of anything else happening in the universe. But hey ho.

I agree with you.

I agreed with you.

It's really not. Remaining in contact with the ball carrier, in itself, is not a penalty. The holding of the shirt did not contribute to King losing the ball. Shocking decision by a VR.