Jump to content

Wellsy4HullFC

Coach
  • Posts

    11,454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Wellsy4HullFC

  1. 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.
  2. Why does everyone suggest 9s? It's never been successful.
  3. 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.
  4. "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.
  5. 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."
  6. Didn't ignore anything that happened involving the Hull players though.
  7. 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.
  8. 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..."
  9. 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.
  10. Yes, usually because something has been missed, not because something has been seen.
  11. Question: If this is an insurance issue, how are we going to insure players for international games that use different rules?
  12. Well there is evidence it was correct: the referee, having had time to deliberate, gave the decision based on his knowledge of the laws. It's not like he missed something, or thought he saw something that didn't actually happen. He knew exactly what happened, had time to think, and came to that decision. What reason is there to believe after all that he wouldn't be able to follow the laws?
  13. A shoulder charge is a deliberate action from a player. A head shot is not (well... most of the time). Completely different. You'll never get rid of head contact completely due to the nature of the sport. Penalising accidental contact to such a degree will not prevent it without fundamentally changing the sport.
  14. Is it a bad decision (as in the decision not following the laws)? Or a bad decision (as in you don't agree with the laws)? It really needs clarifying because people are going to think that's the way the game is going until mentioned otherwise. There is no evidence that I've seen so far that it was just a poor call from the ref.
  15. Has dishing out over a dozen cards in one round prevented people being hit in the head? If you want to avoid watching men getting hit in the head then there are other sports or even children's programmes available.
  16. Well I'm glad someone got it. I've watched 2 Hull games and seen 6 cards. The first round had 13 cards, 4 of them red. It's more than just one decision. And of that decision, it's not like it's a decision they just didn't notice (like giving a penalty try despite a similar thing happening earlier in the game and not even getting a penalty, that might just not have been seen), it was thought about and decided after deliberation. This is the precursor before even more stringent rules come in. If this is how bad it is now, then it's only going to get worse. I can genuinely see a lot of people turning away from the game very quickly if we insist on this much of a shift.
  17. The people making excuses for that, or telling people they're overreacting, or patronising them when they say they have fallen out of love with the sport because it things like this, quite frankly need to go away. I'm sorry, these apologists are part of the problem. I've defended some seemingly bizarre choices the game has made over the years in order to keep some bewildered fans from walking away, but I can't and I won't defend that. If this is the way the sport is looking to deal with the head issue, it's lost me as a fan. I don't spend my time and money to be left frustrated and angered at the sport for the majority of the spectacle (I can deal with it from a team perspective, but not the sport). I want to see a good, fair and tough competition. I don't like dirty play, but I like risk and reward. These new rules are eliminating the toughness, the fairness and the competitiveness. What we are getting is a lottery. I never expected much of us as a team this year, yet I've been looking forward to watching the sport as a whole more than I have for a while with the improvement in coverage. I've gone from looking forward to watching every game to considering walking away altogether in the space of 2 weeks, that's how bad this is. I'm going to watch the WCC tonight as it's different rules. Hopefully there'll be a common sense moment and they go "oh, that's what it should be like, let's change it back." I may give it a couple more weeks after that, but if it's more of the same then I'm done until it changes. Keeping insurance premiums down is pointless if you're reducing your income. Fix it.
  18. Aww, you've got one player out? Have you seen the Hull squad?! I don't think we even had a player of that ilk to have out in the first place! Position of privilege there. I don't think we'll score again.
  19. Yes, I hate not knowing how the concurrent games are doing in real-time. More of the same. If not, I'll just have to put both games on two screens!
  20. The obvious solution is to put them all on at once... TV, tablet, laptop, smartphone. Problem solved. You're welcome.
  21. Been saying this for years. It's the best way to avoid making a mockery of the disciplinary system around international games. Only takes the sudden banning of top international NRL players that aren't Australian to show you why this is important.
  22. When you have unreserved seating areas, I believe you need to allow for 10% empty seats. Our highest capacity for this was just over 23k, which sounds about right in terms of unreserved empty spaces. That 23k has dropped now due to segregation. Think around 21.5k-22k is the max. They announced 20,008 I believe this Thursday, and there were loads of seats available in the upper West and a few in the Rovers stand. Certainly wasn't capacity.
  23. I'd attempt to argue with you, but you just thought Rovers could have been a top 2 team in your next post so there's not much point.
×
×
  • 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.