Featherstone (H)

[NickD]

35 minutes ago, muddyfunster said:

Fax away!

Wasn’t there so can’t comment.  Got to have been the strangest season for a long time though.  To play half decent rugby so often and yet lose so many is disappointing.  The pleasing thing is that  with a few exceptions, the lads have really tried.   

[coolie]

6 hours ago, Piggy's mate said:

Barra had to beat york this weekend if they were going to stand even a slim chance of catching Dewsbury

There's more chance of me buying a round...

Than Barrow doing a Harry Houdini

[coolie]

14 hours ago, coolie said:

Will you be covering the Batley game next week ??

Good lad cheers

[coolie]

2 hours ago, muddyfunster said:

Fax away!

That was a shocker

And if I'd have paid in I'd have asked for my brass back

[The Grinder]

19 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

http://websites.sportstg.com/team_info.cgi?c=0-11583-180447-477262-26160531&a=SFIX

We disbanded our reserves because there were hardly any teams to play. If the above is correct not much has changed. Once it becomes compulsory and they have to fulfil fixtures, it will take up a lot of players. Some coaches may still want a few fringe players in DR, but it's hard to see as many as now.

WR,

I posted this in response to a similar question on the Fax forum:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I get where you are coming from, but I don't believe this will be true, especially for the SL sides that already have Reserve sides. Even the ones that don't have reserves already will automatically have 2 years worth of academy players available to them next year, because of the change in age group, going from under 19s to under 18s for academies means that players in their last two years of the academy set up will automatically fill the majority of the player roster in the reserves. On top of this most SL first team squads are in the region of 26-28 players so leaves a significant number of players, about 4-5 (assuming that most clubs are running with 4-6 injuries at any one time) that are not getting game time with the first team. Then given that the reserves, to begin with will mainly be 19/20 year old youngsters, SL clubs will probably look to still utilise DR and loans for these players to get game time in the Championship which will generally be a higher grade of rugby than the reserves. This becomes even more true for sides that already have reserve sides.

This partly answers the question Griff asks about where the players are coming from. As an example Castleford have an academy of 24 players from this year, I suspect that that 2/3rds of those will be over age for an under 18s comp next year (if not more), meaning that they will already have a core of 16+ players for the reserves team next year, therefore only need to supplement these with another 7 or so players. Meaning that across the sides without a reserve side currently the SL sides will need to find in the region of 40-60 players rather than 200+ to make up the reserves comp. Beware SL clubs coming to raid Fax/Fev/Keighley/Bulls reserves as well as the armature game for these additional players.

Personally I would like to think that your assessment is true and DR will wither on the vine, but somehow I don't doubt it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[The Grinder]

I though Dewsbury were extremely unlucky not to get at least a point from yesterday's game. A great game for the neutral.

Good luck for the rest of the season.

[Wakefield Ram]

 

[Wakefield Ram]

22 hours ago, The Grinder said:

WR,

I posted this in response to a similar question on the Fax forum:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I get where you are coming from, but I don't believe this will be true, especially for the SL sides that already have Reserve sides. Even the ones that don't have reserves already will automatically have 2 years worth of academy players available to them next year, because of the change in age group, going from under 19s to under 18s for academies means that players in their last two years of the academy set up will automatically fill the majority of the player roster in the reserves. On top of this most SL first team squads are in the region of 26-28 players so leaves a significant number of players, about 4-5 (assuming that most clubs are running with 4-6 injuries at any one time) that are not getting game time with the first team. Then given that the reserves, to begin with will mainly be 19/20 year old youngsters, SL clubs will probably look to still utilise DR and loans for these players to get game time in the Championship which will generally be a higher grade of rugby than the reserves. This becomes even more true for sides that already have reserve sides.

This partly answers the question Griff asks about where the players are coming from. As an example Castleford have an academy of 24 players from this year, I suspect that that 2/3rds of those will be over age for an under 18s comp next year (if not more), meaning that they will already have a core of 16+ players for the reserves team next year, therefore only need to supplement these with another 7 or so players. Meaning that across the sides without a reserve side currently the SL sides will need to find in the region of 40-60 players rather than 200+ to make up the reserves comp. Beware SL clubs coming to raid Fax/Fev/Keighley/Bulls reserves as well as the armature game for these additional players.

Personally I would like to think that your assessment is true and DR will wither on the vine, but somehow I don't doubt it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Coaches might want to include more experienced players in the Reserves to help develop the younger players. Depends how seriously the SL clubs take the Reserves idea, guess we'll have to wait and see. Watching the video shows the impact DR had on Sunday's game.

[NickD]

On 04/08/2019 at 17:38, Rambo said:

Not sure how we didn’t get anything out of the game.

Very disappointing again but we played well.

 

 

 

Didn't go as already mentioned but just seen on highlights why we didn't get anything out of the game..The penalty against Knowles for tackling without the ball is an absolute joke and they scored from that and the penalty when their man ends up in touch is just as bad and they scored from that too.  By the time the ref shouts "held" there is nothing the lads can do to stop him going in touch...

The knock on from the kick is touch and go but reckon that 9 times out of 10 it would have been given as knock on.

Boy oh boy, with the exception of Rochdale away we haven't had the rub of the green this year...

[Piggy's mate]

2 minutes ago, NickD said:

The penalty against Knowles for tackling without the ball is an absolute joke and they scored from that and the penalty when their man ends up in touch is just as bad and they scored from that too.  By the time the ref shouts "held" there is nothing the lads can do to stop him going in touch..

These are prime examples interpreting the rules to the letter and not using common sense! If a player tosses the ball out after ref calls held he makes him go back and play it, if the team have a shove on and the ref shouts held just bring it back and play it. There are lots of silly penalties were the crime doesn't fit the punishment I.e. booting the ball 30 yards down field and getting another set of six

[Jacko45]

16 minutes ago, NickD said:

Didn't go as already mentioned but just seen on highlights why we didn't get anything out of the game..The penalty against Knowles for tackling without the ball is an absolute joke and they scored from that and the penalty when their man ends up in touch is just as bad and they scored from that too.  By the time the ref shouts "held" there is nothing the lads can do to stop him going in touch...

The knock on from the kick is touch and go but reckon that 9 times out of 10 it would have been given as knock on.

Boy oh boy, with the exception of Rochdale away we haven't had the rub of the green this year...

What about the try under the sticks where he knocks on & Goulding tells the Ref & he says sorry Ash couldn't see from this side & gives it. Swings & Roundabouts pal.

[NickD]

1 hour ago, Jacko45 said:

What about the try under the sticks where he knocks on & Goulding tells the Ref & he says sorry Ash couldn't see from this side & gives it. Swings & Roundabouts pal.

Didn't see any knock on so not buying the playground analogy....

[Robin Evans]

2 hours ago, NickD said:

Didn't see any knock on so not buying the playground analogy....

No nick.... you'll stick with the playground one-eyedness instead....

There were several examples where the ref makes a call that gets fans of clubs yowling.... it happened on sunday like it happens every sunday at every game.

Sh it happens

 

[NickD]

44 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

No nick.... you'll stick with the playground one-eyedness instead....

There were several examples where the ref makes a call that gets fans of clubs yowling.... it happened on sunday like it happens every sunday at every game.

Sh it happens

 

No one-eyedness here..You might have noticed that Ive acknowledged in my comment about the Rochdale game that we got the rub of the green that day.  However in this game we clearly didn't..Even if there was knock on it certainly doesn't cancel out the two decisions I mention...so yet again I think the lads were a little unlucky..

[graham fisher]

43 minutes ago, NickD said:

No one-eyedness here..You might have noticed that Ive acknowledged in my comment about the Rochdale game that we got the rub of the green that day.  However in this game we clearly didn't..Even if there was knock on it certainly doesn't cancel out the two decisions I mention...so yet again I think the lads were a little unlucky..

It’s conspiracy Nickbecause the RFL don’t want us in super league

[Robin Evans]

10 hours ago, NickD said:

No one-eyedness here..

Of course not Nick, of course not!

[NickD]

15 hours ago, graham fisher said:

It’s conspiracy Nickbecause the RFL don’t want us in super league

Now you’re talking nonsense.  They don’t even know we exist

[The Phantom Horseman]

I thought on balance Fev got the rub of the green with certain decisions, but yes it's one-eyed only to mention the ones that adversely affect your team - for instance when Albert knocked on straight after the kick off following his try it was a blatant piece of interference from Knowles, who jumped on top of him as he was trying to get up to play the ball. 9 times out of ten that penalty goes to the attacking team, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Dewsbury battled hard and deserve plenty of credit and it certainly could have gone either way, but I think Fev just about deserved to win having outgained Dewsbury in terms of yardage by over 350 yards.  Fev's tendency to gift field position nearly came back to bite us though (think we coughed up the ball four or five times inside our own 30m) which was frustrating as apart from Ryder's break Dewsbury only really looked dangerous close to our line.

[Crown Flatter]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I thought on balance Fev got the rub of the green with certain decisions, but yes it's one-eyed only to mention the ones that adversely affect your team - for instance when Albert knocked on straight after the kick off following his try it was a blatant piece of interference from Knowles, who jumped on top of him as he was trying to get up to play the ball. 9 times out of ten that penalty goes to the attacking team, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Dewsbury battled hard and deserve plenty of credit and it certainly could have gone either way, but I think Fev just about deserved to win having outgained Dewsbury in terms of yardage by over 350 yards.  Fev's tendency to gift field position nearly came back to bite us though (think we coughed up the ball four or five times inside our own 30m) which was frustrating as apart from Ryder's break Dewsbury only really looked dangerous close to our line.

Fev did get the run of the green.

Isn’t a team supposed to look dangerous close to the line?

[The Phantom Horseman]

31 minutes ago, Crown Flatter said:

Fev did get the run of the green.

Isn’t a team supposed to look dangerous close to the line?

1. Yes, that's what I said.

2. What I meant was that I didn't think Dewsbury ever threatened toget the ball into a dangerous position without the aid of a Fev mistake (or a penalty), other than Ryder's break.

Fev knocked on or committed a forward pass seven times inside our own 30, though Dewsbury deserve credit for creating the pressure that led to those errors.

[Lupset Ram]

5 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

1. Yes, that's what I said.

2. What I meant was that I didn't think Dewsbury ever threatened toget the ball into a dangerous position without the aid of a Fev mistake (or a penalty), other than Ryder's break.

Fev knocked on or committed a forward pass seven times inside our own 30, though Dewsbury deserve credit for creating the pressure that led to those errors.

You're talking a lot of sense there actually. For most of the game, when Dewsbury had  the ball, they were coming out from near to their own goal line, which in technical terms is known as a recovery set. By the end of the set, they'd be kicking into Fev's territory while still in their own half. 

 

When Fev were starting their set's, they had the benefit of good field position first. By the end of the set, they were in a position to either execute an attacking option or force a mistake by Dewsbury, thus giving them a repeat set.

 

Basically, when you're playing recovery sets for most of the game, it's a bit like tredding water, and at some point you're going to sink.

[Tom Coates]

An explanation on the scoreboard clock:

The scoreboard is operated manually from the control room, which is the box on half-way in the North Stand, totally independently of the timekeeper.

We try to manually stop and start the clock in line with the referee's signals, but frustratingly an increasing number of referees appear to prefer to communicate this through their headset only ("time off") with no signal to the stand.

This makes tracking the stoppages difficult, as we aren't wired up to the referee's radio.

The reason the clock jumped back on Sunday was because in the closing stages of the game one of us went down to check on the time remaining and corrected the time on the scoreboard to ensure it was as accurate as possible.

Sometimes, the timekeeper in front of us has a nice clear tablet screen, where the clock is visible, which makes life far easier, as we can correct the time on the fly, but other times, like on Sunday, it's a small digital stopwatch, which makes it far more difficult.

In short, trying to keep the scoreboard clock accurate is a very manual and often very frustrating task. This is why we announce as often as possible that it is intended as a guide only.

[Crown Flatter]

Thanks for the explanation Tom. I used to have my watch stop/start on the referee’s signal, but I gave up for two reasons:

1: because we all now look at the scoreboard and

2: because I thought I kept missing his signal (now I understand why from your explanation). 

I must admit I thought you and your colleagues were closer to the official timekeeper. 

I still sometimes revert to using my watch, as I did at Rochdale because their scoreboard is um, basic. 

[Tom Coates]

I do find it strange that there doesn't appear to be any standard issue kit for timekeepers.

Some seem to work from classic stopwatches, others use an app on a tablet - and there was one last season with a very retro looking analogue clock.

I think a good solution would be for the timekeepers to use a laptop and an RFL-built website similar to this: https://www.online-stopwatch.com/full-screen-stopwatch/

It'd be very easy to give "guests" (fans) access to see the time for any given match,  from a phone or computer, so that the process is totally transparent and anybody who wants to see how long's left can do so (including the poor buggers trying to run the scoreboard!).

Would just take the pressure off everybody and it wouldn't cost a lot to do.

 

[Lupset Ram]

1 hour ago, Tom Coates said:

I do find it strange that there doesn't appear to be any standard issue kit for timekeepers.

Some seem to work from classic stopwatches, others use an app on a tablet - and there was one last season with a very retro looking analogue clock.

I think a good solution would be for the timekeepers to use a laptop and an RFL-built website similar to this: https://www.online-stopwatch.com/full-screen-stopwatch/

It'd be very easy to give "guests" (fans) access to see the time for any given match,  from a phone or computer, so that the process is totally transparent and anybody who wants to see how long's left can do so (including the poor buggers trying to run the scoreboard!).

Would just take the pressure off everybody and it wouldn't cost a lot to do.

 

How do they do it at Super League games when they're on the telly? 

Everyone can see the clock ticking away.