Jump to content

Fri 22 Feb: SL: St Helens v Leeds Rhinos KO 7.45pm (TV)


Who will win?  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • St Helens
      33
    • Leeds Rhinos
      7

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 22/02/19 at 19:45

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, corvusxiii said:

As a neutral I thought Hicks kept out of of the game as much as he could which for me leads to an entertaining game. RL can be like that.

The game at Huddersfield tonight was quite different. It can be frustrating when the ref blows for about 100 penalties in 80 minutes, even if he's technically right every time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After near 6 decades of being involved with RL I had a new expierence last night, I actually felt sorry for Leeds, I am not going to chastise the ref as is some's want, there has not been a man born yet who has not made an error of some sort, but in such a see-saw match which could have gone either way I felt we (speccies and viewers) were all denied the opportunity to see what might have been but for that ref decision reversal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, corvusxiii said:

As a neutral I thought Hicks kept out of of the game as much as he could which for me leads to an entertaining game. RL can be like that.

Agreed, Stop moaning about the referee and enjoy the game.  I never see this problem in Union which is far more complex,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, saintspete83 said:

I see the gate was 800 down on last year's game around the same time of year. New begginings? 

In my experience, new initiatives are usually given longer than three weeks to be proven to be successful or not.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Leeds Wire said:

The game at Huddersfield tonight was quite different. It can be frustrating when the ref blows for about 100 penalties in 80 minutes, even if he's technically right every time. 

The problem is, we either have a standard or we don't.   I don't think we can change the standards just because both teams are constantly infringing the rules.    Maybe the way forward in such a situation is to have an observer with a 2nd subjective view who can advise the ref and put in some sort of half-time warning based on what he's seen.

Maybe in the distant future there'll be the technology available to have every game reffed by some Artificial Intelligence computer software to ensure that each game is reffed to the same standards.   SKY TV could be the driving force behind such an innovation (like they were with the video ref) and they could brand the new technology something like "SKYnet Cyber Systems"...   what could possibly go wrong?   Artificial Intelligence is safe, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still struggling with the first try decision, previous on field rulings have always been if the ball carrying arm touches the floor it is tackle complete, if a player fields a ball and goes to the floor and an opposition arm touches him it is tackle complete. Here the ball carrying arm touched the floor and then was lifted and the ball placed further forward. commentary fwiw were happy with it, and so were Hicks, VR and Cummins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rodill Rover said:

I am still struggling with the first try decision, previous on field rulings have always been if the ball carrying arm touches the floor it is tackle complete, if a player fields a ball and goes to the floor and an opposition arm touches him it is tackle complete. Here the ball carrying arm touched the floor and then was lifted and the ball placed further forward. commentary fwiw were happy with it, and so were Hicks, VR and Cummins. 

I can understand that decision as the momentum didn't stop until the player was over the line.   He then had to move his arm to get the ball down but it was his momentum that got him in that position, not the movement of the arm.   Technically correct even if it looked dodgy on first glance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Swansea Jack said:

Agreed, Stop moaning about the referee and enjoy the game.  I never see this problem in Union which is far more complex,

You must go around with your eyes and ears shut then. Far more controversy over refs decisions in union than in Rugby. The ref decides who wins the game in the so called "complex" sport 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

The problem is, we either have a standard or we don't.   I don't think we can change the standards just because both teams are constantly infringing the rules.    Maybe the way forward in such a situation is to have an observer with a 2nd subjective view who can advise the ref and put in some sort of half-time warning based on what he's seen.

Maybe in the distant future there'll be the technology available to have every game reffed by some Artificial Intelligence computer software to ensure that each game is reffed to the same standards.   SKY TV could be the driving force behind such an innovation (like they were with the video ref) and they could brand the new technology something like "SKYnet Cyber Systems"...   what could possibly go wrong?   Artificial Intelligence is safe, right?

After three penalties on the trot it would probably decide to kill everyone on the field ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Rhino said:

After three penalties on the trot it would probably decide to kill everyone on the field ?

Which would send a clear message, agreed? ?

The big problem is reffing the Women's leagues.   If a team's key playmaker goes by the name of Sarah Connor they are put at a disadvantage from the word go.   Even Cyber Refs can be biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the old saying , don't argue with the referee he won't change his mind , lol that's gone out the windows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rodill Rover said:

I am still struggling with the first try decision, previous on field rulings have always been if the ball carrying arm touches the floor it is tackle complete, if a player fields a ball and goes to the floor and an opposition arm touches him it is tackle complete. Here the ball carrying arm touched the floor and then was lifted and the ball placed further forward. commentary fwiw were happy with it, and so were Hicks, VR and Cummins. 

Totally agree.

We have seen literally dozens of trys turned down given the exact same scenario over the years.

Cummings always seems to find a way to justify the on field error of the officials rather than call it for what it is.

The commentary team will do no more than to say a few calls went against 'insert team name' tonight and brush it off. Understandably though, saying week after week, yet another result dictated by abysmal officiating will only drive viewers away!

People hate the NRL comparisons but those that watch it will tell you that officials rarely make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

I can understand that decision as the momentum didn't stop until the player was over the line.   He then had to move his arm to get the ball down but it was his momentum that got him in that position, not the movement of the arm.   Technically correct even if it looked dodgy on first glance.

He had the ball grounded before the line with his arm also in contact, at that point it is tackle complete, he can’t lift it and plant the ball again no matter how much momentum there is. The decision is made though and that is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, it looks like I was right after all.  Saints needed to get some steel, which they did, defend well, which they did, and then they gave themselves chances to score, which they did.  Not the highest standard of game and nerve shredding probably for both sets of fans but entertaining when watched back without the nerve shredding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rodill Rover said:

He had the ball grounded before the line with his arm also in contact, at that point it is tackle complete, he can’t lift it and plant the ball again no matter how much momentum there is. The decision is made though and that is that.

Are you sure the tackle is complete even if there is clearly momentum?   We've seen it so many times on VR decisions since the inception of SL that I thought it was the accepted interpretation that if the momentum isn't stopped then it doesn't matter whether the ball carrying arm touched the floor or not.   Maybe someone with a copy of the rule book could paste the official line on here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

I can understand that decision as the momentum didn't stop until the player was over the line.   He then had to move his arm to get the ball down but it was his momentum that got him in that position, not the movement of the arm.   Technically correct even if it looked dodgy on first glance.

Official rules:-

"When tackled: 2. A player in possession is tackled:

Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.

.......

Hand on player (d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent already grounded places a hand on him."

The tackle was effective, the sliding tackle rule only relates to grounding before the line and momentum taking the ball over the line whilst still on the ground.

As soon as he lifts the ball up to have a second go he should have been penalised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Which would send a clear message, agreed? ?

The big problem is reffing the Women's leagues.   If a team's key playmaker goes by the name of Sarah Connor they are put at a disadvantage from the word go.   Even Cyber Refs can be biased.

I think Eddy's patented that phrase ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

The tackle was effective, the sliding tackle rule only relates to grounding before the line and momentum taking the ball over the line whilst still on the ground.

As soon as he lifts the ball up to have a second go he should have been penalised.

But the rule posted doesn't mention the above it states:

20 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

A player in possession is tackled:

Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.

The key word being 'held'.   I'm not saying your interpretation isn't correct but we'd have to have a definition of 'held' to help us (in RL terms).   To use an analogy, how many times do we see a player take defenders over the line with them and score a try - but if the elbow of the ball carrying arm hits the ground before the ball does do we determine that as 'held' instead of one movement?

Maybe it's an area the RFL need to clarify to make sure we (or refs) are all on the same wavelength.

FWIW I thought Hicks gave all the other so-called '50/50s' to Saints and I would rightly feel a bit miffed as a Leeds fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two parts to the law in play here I think for the 'double movement' try/no try.

1. The laws state that the attacking player is allowed to slide over the line which is what Fages did.  This was momentum and so the tackle wasn't complete before he slid over the line.

2. The second movement law states that "when an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try."

and

"If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed."

The problem is that the second movement rule talks about when the player is tackled before the line.  In this is the case, Fages grounded the ball before the line but then momentum carried him over the line.  As such (in my opinion), it falls into part one of the second law and the try stands because Fages wasn't within easy reach - he ended up over the line through momentum before he grounded the ball.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodill Rover said:

I am still struggling with the first try decision, previous on field rulings have always been if the ball carrying arm touches the floor it is tackle complete, if a player fields a ball and goes to the floor and an opposition arm touches him it is tackle complete. Here the ball carrying arm touched the floor and then was lifted and the ball placed further forward. commentary fwiw were happy with it, and so were Hicks, VR and Cummins. 

THe tackle is only complete when your natural momentum stops regardless of elbows or anything else.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.