redjonn

I think results are as expected as well as being inconsistent at the moment, as again expected. Roberts has been good cover for injured Futsitu'a and I would expect him to not be first choice when no injuries, whilst McDonnell in my view has been a good signing. he played well last year - a typical solid SL player.. The spine isn't functioning as well as one would have expected but then again the problem is more the forwards. Leeds struggle to make yards and kicking from deep doesn't help Brodie and Ackers to shine. Frawley field kicking has been poor plus not strong enough boot, as a simple example to make most of penalties. He barely makes yards from those kicks. Mohorovici when he gets a decent run at centre rather than having to cover wing I think will be decent enough. Imho as said above if we have forwards that struggle non of the backs will shine but a decent strong field kicker would help get them out of a pickle. At least recognise when an early kick is needed plus maybe a more aggressive defence that may limit opposition yardage. Oh a better full back that joins the attacking line more frequently may also help Croft... they miss Myler despite Miller flatting to deceive.

don't know about the game plan or approach... simply Leeds were dominated up front... Warrington forwards were just more powerful. stronger and out muscled Leeds equivalent... Leeds struggled to make yards and were kicking from deep. That has been a constant last couple of years. They don't have the same physicality of the top 4 clubs, which would seem to be a recruitment philosophy in the type of forwards they sign. Nowadays and taking Warringtons Curry as an example he is both a strong and powerful runner but also quite agile. Leeds seem to to have the agility in the forwards but are comparably lightweight hence not the equivalent power.

One that amused me more was when x3 Warrington players lifted the Leeds winger off the ground and carried him a number of steps, into touch. and then dropped him... must admit I didn't think you could lift and carry a player.... it was quite amusing

Nene MacDonald played well at Leeds, in fact he was excellent most of the times he played at Leeds... So I don't think the Nene comment is relevant. Croft is not playing so well, but then I only occasionally watched Salford so can get a wrong impression if I only watched on his good days. Did Croft play deeper at Salford as at Leeds when he receives he is immediately under tackle pressure and doesn't seem to have the time nor space. Leeds seem to play quite a flat line.

watched his press conference and he seemed honest enough to me that Leeds didn't perform, Warrington much better, even when Leeds managed to get closer on the points just after half time, etc etc, even if the double movement try was given and score even closer that Warrington always looked better team. So he didn't blame ref. Of course he will be under pressure, the performances have not been good enough and though they play really well at times its normally a poor half followed by a really good half... and to be honest even if all games had been won he would be under pressure by many Leeds fans,,,

IMHO Dupree should have received a few games ban given the both the context and taking a common sense approach, bearing in mind the overall drive to lessen dangerous play... Hopefully our RL journalists should engage RFL and the ref leadership on how this type of leading with the elbow is seen as safe play not worthy of any ban and given the RFL goals. Comparing this the Dupree to the Cam Smith incident one which the MRP see as different to the Cam Smith, the Dupree one capable of much much more serious injury.

I think your right and I agree with the current process and as such agree a try should have been awarded if VR could not see an obvious reason not to give. Never-the-less I thought that the action replays shown that the VR was viewing showed he didn't have control and one showed in my opinion that the ball left his hands and as such a knock on equivalent. The VR didn't keep viewing that full on angle. The other angles didn't show that separation as clearly. As such if the VR can not see it as an obvious drop or loss of control its a Try as the ref gave it up as a try. In normal speed surely that's what he would have thought, a Try but he did ask for it to be checked. To me it was a good example of the process. Otherwise back to benefit of the doubt and awarding the attacking team. It was as much lack of control as the Leeds try against Cas... rightly awarded as the ref sent it up viewing it in normal speed.

yep, but then again Saints are a good side... so I wasn't surprised about them winning. Having said that I was surprised how much better saints were - even more surprised they chose to take the early penalties. Leeds line defence was relatively good, their outer field defence is extremely poor. Any team to-date is easily crossing into 40/30 yard area enabling good attacking kicks. Whereas Leeds are as it seems to me struggling to get across the half way line and more often than not kicking from around the 40 yard line or even further back. Thus every opposition set they are on the back foot. Are they being too cautious with the off side line resulting in not having an "aggressive line" rather than a "passive" line.

Maybe, but he did say as you say we worked together with match officials prior and during early season ... but then commented in my words as I can't remember his exact words... that what was agreed has not been followed through in last few rounds and the PTB, etc etc is not being adhered to as agreed... that being said after he talked about the teams poor performance and Saints being the better team. We disagree in our views...

he didn't though.... he was asked a pointed question about the PTB area and he talked about the change of approach talked about and how it has regressed back to previous seasons ignoring of it plus the flopping on tackling, six again and off side not applied... he did say not just our game but looking across all the games last week.... He was spot on with those comments. On the actual game he was critical of their performance, not enough intent, performance not were it needed to be, disappointed in not stopping the try just before half time, Saints were the much better team, only a short period of 15-20 mins after halftime were they had more intent, etc. Only until asked pointedly by journalist about the poor PTB in the game did he move on to a more general comment on the approach agreed before season started had regressed back to the poor interpretations of the rule again. So to me he was clear they were not good enough on the day and the opposition were the much better team, etc So I would disagree with your comment.

Just on your more general points about RL in general. Having just watched an excellent game between Leeds and Saints I am not sure that the increased focus on high tackles is damaging the game, particularly with the nuances following Nu Brown incident. I can understand how your frustration with Hull FC could also translate into loss of regard for the sport but I personally don't think its damaging the game that much. Plus the focus around PTB is a marked improvement from the officials. I would agree though with your comment on the six again.

50 chains then...rather than 5 furlongs

Good to see that many see it as a positive for RL coverage. For me personally it doesn't impact in that I only watch RL when I go to a game, which is most weeks. Only occasionally watching on TV. I guess I like the camaraderie (for want of a better word) aspect when are are discussing the same game on forum. As now with many games the same night that may be impacted. I guess ultimately if RL benefits from increased exposure leading to increased attendances and increased media monies than that's great. I guess time will tell if its just the same people as always watching with no material impact elsewhere. It seems to be great start and fingers crossed it achieves the mid to long term aims of projecting the sport forward.

yes for me that would be true, but then again that applies to all the games I've watched this season. I do assume that the application has changed since the first two rounds, or nuanced as RFL said following the Nu Brown clash of heads. At the game last night I thought that Leigh took wrong approach 2nd half and should have managed the game better with better deep field kicking into touch. Having said that it was surprising how strong and bitingly cold the wind was during the game. Maybe why both teams struggled playing against it and maybe contributed towards each team dominating the half they did and corresponding playing poorly the other half.

the video ref did mention he was looking to see if momentum or illegally moved. He decided it wasn't. At least he looked and checked, all be it he formed a different judgement to yourself.

A clarification point... Watching the game again this morning I notice how often Panthers didn't attempt to PTB with the foot... just stepped over it. Edwards I don't think ever did a proper PTB... This no doubt part of why they were able them to play so quickly and make so many yards... I guessing in international rules the PTB is not policed as it should be... what is the rules for PTB in international rules.

A great win by Wigan, against the odds, particularly given the field dominance of Panthers. The last replay by the BBC showed, imho, that he didn't ground the last sec try attempt. They din't show it repeatedly, a pity as it seem clear no try. The Wardle try, the question is whether a double movement as it was possibly on the line. The Video ruled it wasn't a double movement. As to the rest of so called dubious decisions mentioned on here their was only one clealy incorrect and that was the ball strip. The first try I just don't see how some claim forward as the passes also came out the hands backwards. It was good to hear the Panthers coach give his opinions as to why they lost, they did not make the most of their opportunities. He didn't harp on about any decisions, wish he was on this forum rather than some always looking for the negativity and nowt with the positives of Wigans efforts under the cosh.

I agree with your comments but irrespective of the new protocols the game to me seems to have lost some of its free flowing, that is we seem to catching up on as many stops and restarts as the other code. Maybe for different reasons but never-the-less over the last couple of seasons we have a lot more stoppage... for me its an issue, all be it nowt to do with new head injury protocol.

That depends if the ref on reflection thinks he made a mistake... or he believes he applied the rules as expected of him and hence he believes he didn't make a mistake... I suspect he thinks he followed the protocols and didn't make a mistake. The protocols need a little more nuance...

Consistency... only way can have consistency is if its a fixed punishment for a particular offence. Otherwise it will always be subjective depending upon precise circumstances and interpretations applied to adjudge punishment. What I find with some comments when they say we want consistency and then apply their view of mitigating and hence subjective opinion of the punishment... or compare to different offences punishments which are not precisely the same context. If we had fixed punishments no matter context or mitigation then people would moan. Otherwise we should accept the element of subjectivity and hence it won't always be consistent... at least we have an explanation of why punishment and hence mitigation/subjective opinion applied.

not sure on the evidence of the Leeds/Salford game last night. For sure in the Hull derby it was much better regards wrestle and quicker PTB.

Agree, but I think you missed one aspect... attrition. That is attrition has always been a key aspect and the dominant team benefiting in last quarter. Seems to me we may be allowing too much periods of no play for various reasons. Some games last year and whilst not so bad in the Leeds/Salford game last night their was a start stop flow to the game... my one concern is we end up not much different than RU, all be it for different fundamental reasons.

I found it interesting but as one that had comments regards the grading system I would not say I or others were not s fixated as your comment implies, it was a topic of much interest for sure. That's not to say I and others were not keen to hear more of what has been happening from IMG. It is good to hear but maybe a little sooner and more would have been good. Then again maybe it was their and I hadn't seen it. Interesting on younger generation and following players. Although I and friends (older gen) have always been interested in more than one club for various reasons that peaked an interest and then no matter what players that interest has continued for many a year. Would be interested to know what makes him so sure its players and not other aspects that cause the following of multiple clubs/teams.

is this a sort of Cas pantomime.... On no they haven't.... oh yes they have....

For me the key point would be.... if London are such a basket case how the hell can a system rate them as a B... I say basket case not as my assessment but based on the sort of commentary on here...