Dunbar

I have decided that the best way for me to describe why I don't like him is a fun multiple choice quiz based on Folau's own list. Question. What do you call someone who takes other people's money on false promises in order to enrich himself? 1. A drunk 2. A homosexual 3. An adulterer 4. A liar 5. A fornicator 6. A thief 7. An atheist 8. An idolater (tip... more than one can be correct)

Yes, I think that is fair. In retrospect is wasn't dangerous as Percival wasn't injured but Isa didn't know that and simply decided to collide with a player because he felt he could win a penalty. I am glad it didn't result in injury or make an injury worse.

Thanks. And was there are any particular reason given why the year delay would improve the impact? We are seeing Wimbledon and the Euros continuing and not being particularly negatively impacted even with the reduced capacities and yet we have people recommending the first major tournament scheduled for this country after all restrictions on sports crowds are removed being postponed for 12 months.

The Isa and Percival incident wasn't particularly dangerous or foul play necessarily. What it was though was utterly embarrassing. I was watching the match on my own which is a good job as if I had been watching it with friends who aren't big Rugby League fans I would have hung my head... a pathetic attempt to try and con a penalty.

Are there any reasons for this opinion being offered?

Winners: Sea Eagles, Rabbitohs, Roosters, Sharks Points total: 198 Home wins: 3 Most points: Roosters

Matt Dufty is a perfect example of a player who, if he was a Super League player, we would be told he would have no chance in the NRL... too small, a good ball runner but awful in defence and poor positioning.

The only logical solutuon is to turn Super League into a double vaccinated over 50's league till the start of season 2022. I may make my professional debut yet!

No, the first line shows that the pressure to the head (illegal contact) was accidental. Your argument all the way through this thread is that all illegal contact is a foul so this pressure applied to the head must be a foul. My argument is that some illegal contact is accidental... as this one is deemed to have been.

And for reference, here is the outcome detail for the charge of dangerous contact against Liam Farrell in the Wigan vs. Warrington match on the 30th of June... Player does not opponent into a dangerous position. Opponent places his head down and head becomes trapped in between the players legs. Pressure applied is totally accidental. So it would appear that 'accidental' is a legitimate reason for not charging a player with dangerous contact even though that contact was illegal.

For information, here is the outcome of the disciplinary panel. Competition: Super League Match: Leeds v Leigh Match Date: 2021-07-01 Incident: Gouging in the 73rd minute Decision: No charge Charge Detail: The player has the ball and is trying to evade the opponent to try and score. Player goes to fend the opponent which he has a right to do. There is no unnatural or aggressive movement of player with his hand towards the opponent and the contact is fleeting. There is no evidence of any attack to the face of the opponent

I'm not sure what you want to get out of this thread. We have agreed that it is not legal contact and we have agreed that it was accidental. Is it just that you want him punished for it?

Here are my observations from last night's game which thoroughly enjoyed. The Leeds forward pack were great, in particular their starting front row of Olędzki and Prior and Holroyd off the bench. Their big men won the battle of metres in the middle against Hill, Cooper and Philbin. The momentum shifted in the second half as Warrington deliberately sped up the ruck with Clark making scoots and the outside backs and Austin running the ball more. As soon as the Warrington team started winning those fast play the balls the space opened for their shift plays. While Warrington made

I am not misquoting them. This is exactly what they say. I accept that I am selectively quoting them but that is what quoting is. As we have discussed previously, the various laws allow for illegal contact to be judged as deliberate, reckless or careless. Each of these is punishable. I believe that the laws as stated also provide an option to be purely accidental which I believe that this is and so not a punishable act of foul play.

The relevance is that it is also weighting towards the conclusion that it was not deliberate. However, we are agreed that it is accidental so we can put this to one side. Question. If an accidental foul is still a foul, why do the laws of the game explicitly say that the referee's duty is to penalise deliberate infringements? If every foul was a foul (accidental or otherwise) then that distinction would not need to be made, but it is.

Got one.... Not only were you wrong, but they actually got beat by a team down to 11 men at one point. Based on those facts, I actually do think there is some misplaced arrogance in there!

Just bear with me a second, I need to just pop over to the England game thread for something relevant from you to paraphrase.

Arrogance? Or just a lack of RL knowledge?

As I posted yesterday, the laws of the game clearly state that the referee is there to enforce the Laws of the Game and may impose penalties for any deliberate breach of the Laws. I don't know how anyone watching the play unfold can state that there was deliberate illegal contact. Even in the still shot, Holroyd is not even looking at Brierley.

Enjoying this game. What a prop Oledzki is, hope Holroyd develops just as well.

I see that Brian has has taken on the challenge from Phil and raised the bar.

I think you can see from his game that Dom Young will be a very good centre. His flick pass for Ponga's first try was quality skill for a player in his first few games. Getting some first grade game time on the wing is good but I want to see him develop as a top class right centre.

Laws of the game. ............... SECTION 16 DUTIES OF REFEREE AND TOUCH JUDGES Enforce Laws 2. The Referees shall enforce the Laws of the Game and may impose penalties for any deliberate breach of the Laws. He shall be the sole judge on matters of fact except those relating to touch and touch in-goal. ................ If the laws of the game state specifically that the referee is there to penalise 'deliberate ' breaches of the law, it is logical therefore that there are also accidental breaches.

No, I think the example you have given is careless. So foul play.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying. It was an accident that the hand wasn't open. Not careless, not reckless... an accident. Accidental contact is not illegal contact as illegal contact is defined as deliberate, reckless or careless.