Wakey v Cas Womens' Challenge Cup Semi - Wow!

[Scubby]

That is harsh! Good luck to Cas in the final, they are a very strong side.

[MADREDNIGE]

That score will really help the game! 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

10 minutes ago, Scubby said:

That is harsh! Good luck to Cas in the final, they are a very strong side.

That picture just be of one of the only times a Wakefield player held the ball!

Ouch.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That picture just be of one of the only times a Wakefield player held the ball!

Ouch.

I think Wakefield have just been promoted which may mean Castleford have swept up the best players in the locality in the first instance. Still a shame in such an important game. I think Cas v Leeds might be the final which was an excellent game at Warrington last year.

[snapski]

12 minutes ago, MADREDNIGE said:

That score will really help the game! 

Do you think they should have eased up? Nonsense. They are a very good team and getting better. I’d  prefer to see them play theTrinity men next time out, instead of that woeful garbage we produced Friday night.

[Number 16]

I can recall some pretty one-sided men's Semis going back which the game managed to survive. Leeds copped seventy to Wigan, for example.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Number 16 said:

I can recall some pretty one-sided men's Semis going back which the game managed to survive. Leeds copped seventy to Wigan, for example.

The Wigan v London CCSF from a few years ago was pretty harsh too.

[Chris22]

Some encouraging crowds this weekend. 1,000 + at Hull FC, 913 at Wakefield and 738 at St Helens.

Considering the women's (football) Super League average is around 800, that's really positive!

[Futtocks]

St Helens 10:16 Leeds in the other semi-final, which you can catch up on, via Twitch.

[latchford albion]

Good article by Aaron Bower on the Cas women's team in the Observer.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/06/womens-rugby-league-castleford-georgia-roche-challenge-cup

[Treize Hombres]

On the face of it, if a club has played an illegible player then surely the match should be awarded to the opposition. The 100 point hammering is irrelevant in my opinion, even though that was probably taken into account.

I accept that an administrative error may have occurred, but it sets a precedent and ignorance of the rules is no defence.

On a more positive note it's great to see the womens game flourishing, as well as the other sectors of our game...hope it goes from strength to strength and looking forward to seeing the Final.

 

[gingerjon]

57 minutes ago, Treize Hombres said:

On the face of it, if a club has played an illegible player then surely the match should be awarded to the opposition. The 100 point hammering is irrelevant in my opinion, even though that was probably taken into account.

I accept that an administrative error may have occurred, but it sets a precedent and ignorance of the rules is no defence.

On a more positive note it's great to see the womens game flourishing, as well as the other sectors of our game...hope it goes from strength to strength and looking forward to seeing the Final.

 

There have been issues before where the RFL assumed its tournament rules covered fairly obvious things but then discovered they weren't clear.

For example, in 2008 Hull FC played the same ineligible player twice in the Cup but were not expelled from the tournament http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/hull/7494285.stm.

That could be what's happened here.

[Treize Hombres]

43 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

There have been issues before where the RFL assumed its tournament rules covered fairly obvious things but then discovered they weren't clear.

For example, in 2008 Hull FC played the same ineligible player twice in the Cup but were not expelled from the tournament http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/hull/7494285.stm.

That could be what's happened here.

Possibly so.

Once again this highlights a lack of communication from the Governing Body to the participating clubs.

I've no doubt it was a genuine mistake, but it reflects bad on our game when this stuff gets into the media. 

 

 

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

Shouldn't this topic be in the cheating section of the Womens Forum?

[Leeds Wire]

2 hours ago, Treize Hombres said:

On the face of it, if a club has played an illegible player then surely the match should be awarded to the opposition. The 100 point hammering is irrelevant in my opinion, even though that was probably taken into account.

I have a feeling that if the game had been settled by a drop goal, scored by the ineligible player, then the RFL might have come to a different conclusion.

[Treize Hombres]

10 minutes ago, Leeds Wire said:

I have a feeling that if the game had been settled by a drop goal, scored by the ineligible player, then the RFL might have come to a different conclusion.

Agreed..I think that would be a likely outcome.

And thanks for using the correct word ineligible...have just realised my grammatical error....perhaps the competition rules sent out were indeed illegible.

[Colin James]

Interesting case. Without wanting to encourage inconsistency or rule bending, it's in nobody's best interests to have a side that has just lost 100-0 competing in a final which is likely to have the biggest audience ever for a women's game in this country.

The crowds at women's games are very encouraging, often bettering the football equivalent and it feels like a real area of growth for the sport. It would be a shame for this showcase opportunity to be undermined because we have put a team in the final by default who have demonstrated they are nowhere near worthy of being on that stage and presumably are likely to be on the end of another tonking.

[Leeds Wire]

10 hours ago, Colin James said:

Interesting case. Without wanting to encourage inconsistency or rule bending, it's in nobody's best interests to have a side that has just lost 100-0 competing in a final which is likely to have the biggest audience ever for a women's game in this country.

The crowds at women's games are very encouraging, often bettering the football equivalent and it feels like a real area of growth for the sport. It would be a shame for this showcase opportunity to be undermined because we have put a team in the final by default who have demonstrated they are nowhere near worthy of being on that stage and presumably are likely to be on the end of another tonking.

Fair point, but it is inconsistent.  

Sweep it under the carpet?

[MZH]

On 07/07/2019 at 16:08, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That picture just be of one of the only times a Wakefield player held the ball!

Ouch.

I think she was just running it back to the halfway line so that they could kick off again.

[MZH]

32 minutes ago, Leeds Wire said:

Fair point, but it is inconsistent.  

Sweep it under the carpet?

I think in this case, yes, that is the best course of action.

Punish them in some other way perhaps, but Wakefield playing in the final really wouldn't do anything for the women's game. There will be a lot of people there who have never seen a women's game in the flesh before (I'll be one of them). They need a good competitive game.

[Colin James]

47 minutes ago, MZH said:

I think in this case, yes, that is the best course of action.

Punish them in some other way perhaps, but Wakefield playing in the final really wouldn't do anything for the women's game. There will be a lot of people there who have never seen a women's game in the flesh before (I'll be one of them). They need a good competitive game.

Exactly this. Bigger picture for the sport says Cas stay in.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

On 07/07/2019 at 15:59, MADREDNIGE said:

That score will really help the game! 

YAWN, big scores have been going on for 150 years in RL and sport in general since year dot (Aboath 36 Bon Accord 0), just go away if you're not bothered about supporting the sport or continually being negative because a team thrashed another team!

[M j M]

As the YEP explains, there isn't inconsistency in application of the rules by the RFL as some claim. It's the rules themselves which are different:

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rfl-investigation-clears-castleford-tigers-ladies-to-play-in-coral-women-s-challenge-cup-final-1-9869685

Quote

Operational rule C2:5:5 states: “Any club found guilty of playing an ineligible player shall be fined not less than £100 and the match may, subject to the management group’s discretion, be awarded to their opponents.

Men’s Challenge Cup rules state: “Any club that plays an ineligible player shall be disqualified save where the club did not know or suspect and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution that the player was ineligible.”

 

[OMEGA]

Great win for Cas Ladies but then again not!

Cas Academy have been producing great girls teams for many years and Cas Ladies are reaping those rewards, as such they’re streets ahead of most other teams.

The Ladies game is so fledgling that wide disparities in quality between teams is  prevalent making results like this  inevitable. 

We should stick with it and allow it to grow and improve  eventually making results like this less likely. During that process we should rightly recognise the achievements of quality teams but let’s be careful not to measure those achievements with the same barometer we use for the men’s game.

[MADREDNIGE]

14 hours ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

YAWN, big scores have been going on for 150 years in RL and sport in general since year dot (Aboath 36 Bon Accord 0), just go away if you're not bothered about supporting the sport or continually being negative because a team thrashed another team!

Not allowed an opinion now because it doesn't agree with yours grow up!