Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

RL does what Sky says

Coach
  • Content Count

    1,319
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

RL does what Sky says last won the day on August 19

RL does what Sky says had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

708 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, make it a 60 hour week .... I'm already retired !!! You are right though in what you said - that is also a factor.
  2. Agreed and in my view he stood in the way in case an opponent tried to quickly get round to tackle the player who had picked up the ball from the scrum. As with Fages, he didn't actually obstruct anyone but his action (or lack of it by not moving away from that position) affected the play of the other team and yet I don't remember anyone complaining about him not retiring behind the scrum on that occasion.
  3. Agreed, yet it's all down to interpretation. For me if Fages was to be penalised then so were the two players in the Wigan v Salford match, you see it otherwise.
  4. I can't remember many of that length (but not saying there weren't) but there were several of about 4 or 5 matches.
  5. Maybe in the same way as you ignored answering this .... EDIT ... Apology, I have just seen an answer in a later post. We obviously have different views as for me the two players in the Wigan v Salford match did nothing different to Fages (ie they didn't actually obstruct anyone yet they did get in a position which could have affected the way an opponent moved). However, either they all should be penalised or none of them.
  6. And I can only conclude that you just want an argument and throw out insults instead of just trying to discuss the matter. Yes have a different opinion but why the insults ? Whether some people like the rule or not, the fact is that, according to the laws of the game, Saints did not have a "pack" as soon as the loose-forward and second-rows detached themselves from it as a"pack" is a group of forwards and a "forward" is defined as a player in the scrum - once they come out they are not a forward and, again according to how the law is written, the scrum-half does not have to go behind them.
  7. So you obviously don't think that the players should have been penalised in the Wigan v Salford match when instead of retiring behind their own pack (indeed, not even making any move at all, which at least Fages did) the two scrum-halves just stood still and in a position blocking a clear run by an opponent ? My other point, of course, is that the "pack" had already broken up when Fages was still crouching down at the side of the scrum (ie the Saints' loose-forward had already come away from the scrum) and therefore there was no pack to retire behind. The laws of the game state... "Scrums" (6 d) The player putting the ball in shall not hesitate or dummy and after putting it in he shall immediately retire behind his own pack of forwards. It also states under "Glossary of Terms" ... Forward .... As applied to a player it means one who is at the time packing down in the scrum. Therefore if a player has come out of the scrum then he is NOT considered as a forward and if so the scrum-half has no need to go behind him as he is only required to go behind the "forwards".
  8. In the early-mid 1990s the RL introduced a ruling that any contact with the head was a sending off and which then lasted until; clubs complained that, even though those dismissed had indeed made contact with the head, too many players had been sent off.
  9. Not the same but they are still interfering with play in that instead of retiring behind the scrum they just stood in a position which prevents an opponent from tackling the player in possession. If you feel Fages should have been penalised then why not for these instances during the Wigan v Salford match ?
  10. So how could he when the pack had broken up before he even stood up straight after putting the ball in ? He never had time to do so. If people think this is the first time a scrum-half has not retired then watch this from the Wigan v Salford semi-final ... Go to 51.50 of actual play (58.30 on the video) and also 57.30 of actual play (1.04.50 on the video). On both occasions - and one for each team - the scrum-half puts the ball in and doesn't even make an attempt to retire yet play continues. If some people say about Fages in the final that he also got in the way of the play then it could also be argued that by just standing there in the video above that the scrum-half has blocked the possible path of an opponent who might have tried to tackle the player in possession ? Therefore if you want penalties for such things then why hasn't it been mentioned before ?
  11. Watching the incident frame by frame (seen from the main camera angle), the St.Helens' loose forward actually begins to detach himself from the scrum while Fages is still in a crouching position at the side of the scrum and before he has even had a chance of retiring back. Therefore at that point the "pack" is no longer there. By the time Fages has made one step away from the scrum then both the St.Helens' second rowers have also broke away. Therefore how can Fages retire behind a pack which in no longer there ?
  12. How can he retire behind the pack if the pack is no longer there ? The "pack" is when the forwards are linked together, not when they have become individuals.
×
×
  • Create New...