fighting irish

In general, I thought the refereeing was poor. With both sides affected. I can't recall all the incidents you've listed. I'm just left with a good feeling about a really exciting match. It's possible I was up, making a cup of tea, or otherwise distracted. If the incidents occurred as you described I think yellow cards would have been appropriate. I have no memory of the latter incident. I think, once a referee ignores an incident of foul play (in an attempt to keep the players on the field, for the sake of the spectacle) it tends to engender similar behaviour. It would have been better to card the first offender. I think it's a shame that so many infringements occurred and took a little of the shine, off a really great game.

Are they definitely going to Moor Lane then? If so, when?

My interest in this thread, (in this argument) is motivated by a desire to see justice done. My assertion is not fanciful, it's based on an analysis of the mechanics of the contact (not withstanding Dunbars argument about the foul nature of the tackle). I make it quite plain, that the initial contact, (with Yaha's shoulder) was fleeting (very short lived) and did not alter Yaha's course towards the in-goal area. The subsequent (foul play) contact with the crook of Makinsons arm striking Yaha's neck and head was of a much greater duration and it was this impulse, that resulted in Yaha being dragged over the touch line preventing the otherwise inevitable score. I note with interest, you make no mention, of the duration of each (legal/illegal) part of the contact and Toppy, as unpleasant as it is, to you, this is the vital element in the analysis. I use the word dragged, rather than pushed or propelled because Makinson was already past Yaha, going over the touch line, but still attached to Yaha's neck, when Yaha's course was significantly altered. I have no desire to see either team win unfairly. I'm concerned with fair play and just desserts. You can rest assured, if Yaha had done the same thing to Makinson, I would be making the same argument in Saints favour. Your insistence that my opinion is coloured by a desire to see Catalans win (unfairly) is just not true (and by the way, grossly insulting). In your post above, you ask and answer three questions. The answers to the first two are correct, though irrelevant. The third answer is completely wrong. See my argument above and all previous posts on the subject and if you can face it, watch the replay again. On your last point, I've seen so many dubious decisions made by the video ref's over the years, the fact that they made a mistake on this occasion doesn't surprise me at all. Last of all, your suggestion that Yaha, would have had to ''regain his feet'' (after the initial impact) before crossing the line, is laughable. He would simply have slid into the in-goal area unhindered.

Just watching Thatto Heath v Wath Brow NCL final. What a great game, highly skilled, tactically wise and some really fashionable haircuts and beard/crewcut combinations. The prize though, for out and out individuality, must go to Thatto's loose forward, Kilgannon who despite the presence of so many dedicated followers of fashion, nonchalantly displays a better Mullet than Noddy Holder!

What makes you think, I'm anti-Saints? The topic under discussion was the Makinson/Yaha incident. My comments were about only that incident and mainly about the mechanics of the impact. I have the greatest admiration for your club and what they have achieved, crumbs my cousin signed for Saints (from WRU) when I was a kid. Don't let your own paranoia cloud your view of my part in this discussion. If you really care for the objective truth, go back and read my posts again.

You've removed the context from my post and as a result, you've misrepresented what I said. So be it. It's just another example of an embarrassed apologist Saints fan trying to deflect attention from the real issue.

Best smelling salts ever! Isn't it typical, of this crowd, that of all his achievements we pick out the most embarrassing blunder of his entire career, to focus on?

Spoken like a true amateur. Hear Hear! It amounts to a cheap pint of bitter a month, big deal.

I don't know mate, but it looks as if we're moving towards the dark side to me.

How come the ref allowed the Knights to push the kick receiver over the dead ball line, with 3 other attacking players trying to stop it. It looks like a bl**dy RaRa maul ! Doesn't he know that a second attacker in a tackle means he should call held?

I hope the income from this venture is ''significant'' and might persuade the RFL to keep developing it as a rival to our (too few) alternative paymasters.

Done it! Hope it's a great match.

Is it on the telly?

Please don't be offended, you had the temerity to accuse another poster of wearing anti-saints specs so with a wry smile, I was giving you a smidgen, of your own medicine. It's laughable how many partisan fans in here consider themselves the only ''objective'' minds alive today, and everyone else as corrupt, foolish, bent, one-eyed, cross-eyed, drunk, or otherwise cognitively impaired. Do you really believe yourself to be impartial? ''O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!.'' Now to the facts. I just pointed out that you forget to mention that LMS deliberately hit a man while he was in the air (and should have had a yellow card for that too). Who knows what might have resulted, if he'd been ''in the bin, as well''? Banging on about the alternative outcomes of the other similar refereeing blunders may be classified as mere (and grossly unsubstantiated) speculation. Flights of fancy of that nature are hardly worth the time, unless of course you contrive to use them as a smoke screen for the real issue. Surely you agree, that of all the regrettable errors, that took place that afternoon the ''Makinson/Yaha incident'' was the most significant, and the only one, where we can be reasonably certain, that the correct/alternative decision would have changed the result of the match?

You should take your rose (and white) coloured specs off Saint. You forgot to mention LMS veering to his right in order to deliberately hit Tompkins legs while he was off the ground. Or are you claiming that was an accident?

Don't be embarrassed.

I'm disappointed that their not on Our League.

The contact with the shoulder was extremely fleeting (I've already made this point). You are betting, that that was enough to push Yaha into touch. You just can't say that definitively, but that you make the claim, belies your feigned neutrality. At the time Makinson slipped over his shoulder, Yaha's upper body, hips and legs were not deflected from their (try scoring) path. It was the latter part, (the illegal part) of the contact, (much longer lasting) which provided the impulse to pull Yaha into touch. I'm not betting, but I am confidently asserting that Yaha had enough momentum (if not for the head shot) to get to the line (long before Naiqama got there) without, as you insist, having to regain his feet and running on. He would simply have slid over the line unencumbered. By the way, not that it's critical to your argument, but to suggest that Makinson could have ''recovered'' and stopped Yaha is, quite frankly, risible. Lastly, I don't accept that Catalans, were the underdogs. You are asserting that they were underdogs not me. I'm neutral. I just want the name of the worthy winners on the trophy.

I agree with Dunbar on this. But, for the avoidance of allegations of bias I'll argue it like the Magic Superbeetle has done. Makinson's momentum (mass x velocity) was sufficient to propel Yaha into touch. In order to do that he needs to stay in contact with Yaha until he's out of play because the initial contact was insufficient. If Makinson's shoulder had stayed in contact with Yaha's elbow/upper arm, he would have prevented a try but it didn't. Makinson's shoulder slid upwards and only his bent/crooked arm remained in contact with Yaha's head forcing his head first and then (dragging) the rest of his body, over the touch-line. If you watch the tackle again, you will see that the time in legal contact with Yaha was a small fraction of the total time in contact and the much greater fraction (which propelled him over the touch line) was in contact with the head. So let's not ask, what would have happened if Makinson hadn't been there (which makes the whole discussion pointless) but what would have happened if Yaha was headless? In that case, Makinson would have flown over the top (and ended up in the stands) and Yaha would have won the GF for Catalans.

Isn't this just great news? The genie is finally out of the bottle.

Bravo!

Who knows? I like the idea of double-headers on a ''ladies first'' basis, as a family crowd-building initiative (we're not selling out at the moment) and I believe it will work in favour of the women's game also, if spectators (for the men's game) see the women's game and like it. It's also more likely to be televised (as a double header) so everyone's a winner. I really don't accept that putting them on first devalues the women's game. If the evidence suggests that a stand-alone women's final can draw the sponsors, the crowd and television company interest, let's go for it. The double-header initiative could help them get there quicker.

That's great news. To be fair, your last paragraph is typical of my own experience. In reality the ''idea'' would be very impractical, and impossible to police but I was just trying to make a point. I just wish RL fans could rejoice in the fact that the game is amazing (compared to others) that they/we are lucky to have it, to enjoy.

Of course you are right Johno' but its very difficult for newcomers (especially) to tell the difference. I took a mate to the Leigh v Toronto game in the Summer Bash and he said the football was great, but he would never go again. He felt intimated (put at risk) by the ''attitude'' and behaviour of some of (a lot of) the fans. Alcohol free, or family zones is a good idea in my opinion and I'd suggest some coaching by the clubs (of their fans) about appropriate behaviour on the terraces. Poor behaviour adversely affects newcomer's desire to revisit. It's a fact.

If I was organising it, (the GF). I'd make it cheaper for people, who've never attended before and/or fans who declare no particular affiliation to any club. Then I'd keep them separate from the others, to prevent them from being infected by the overwhelming cynicism, envy, negativity, referee baiting and out and out neanderthal tribalism that is so prevalent amongst the existing ''so called fans'' of this great game. Talk about the need to break the cycle? We desperately need some new fresh (uninfected) blood, on the terraces and in the stands.