Jump to content

Sat 12 Oct: SLGF: Salford Red Devils v St Helens KO 6pm (TV)


Who will win?  

106 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Salford Red Devils by 13 points or more
      7
    • Salford Red Devils by 7 to 12 points
      19
    • Salford Red Devils by 1 to 6 points
      34
    • St Helens by 1 to 6 points
      1
    • St Helens by 7 to 12 points
      23
    • St Helens by 13 points or more
      22

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 12/10/19 at 17:00

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Presumably then you also think Dudson should have been sin-binned for his head shot on Thompson ? After all it was a swinging arm with direct contact to the head & neck.

Dudson also regularly shoved his head into the tackle when the ball carrier was on the floor. All we can ask is consistency with the referee and I'd argue he was consistent with the tackling technique for both sides through the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 736
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 hours ago, swann5 said:

Well done saints fantastic season , but second half was a joke by kendal. He sould be made to sit in front of a ref's panel and explain himself . How can a super league ref not know it's illigal to hurdle over a  tackle

Because it isn't !!

What is illegal is for a player to jump into the tackler with raised knees, which Grace didn't, he was attempting to jump over & around the tackle and not into the tackler (don't listen to the idiots in the Sky commentary box, they're seemingly just as clueless as some on here). We see similar instance all the time where players will raise their legs, jump, or goose step to avoid a tackler aiming to tackle their legs. It was the correct call from the referee to not penalize him.

Similar with the scrum try. The player feeding the scrum must retreat behind his forwards until the scrum has broken up. Fages feeds the scrum and continually runs in a sideways & backwards motion away from the ball so was constantly retreating while Roby & Taia were running forwards. At no point did he take part in the play after the ball was out of the scrum or place himself between another Saints player and a defender to cause an obstruction. And despite the hissy fit from Welham the replays clearly showed he hadn't been held in the scrum, it was just him being too slow to break and too slow to cover across. So again it was the correct call from the officials to award the try.

There's plenty of comments about the Ashworth tackle on Inu and its one of those 50:50 calls we see in every match, sometimes they get penalized sometimes they don't. There were other instances of head contact in the game that similarly didn't get penalized, notably when Grace made the break down the middle in the lead up to alleged tackle jump he was hit straight around the head by Walker but there was no penalty. As for the head rub, that happens dozens of times in a game, players usually just laugh it off.

The only calls I thought was clearly wrong was the Dudson knock on and the Walker knock on. Yes Dudson moved forward off the mark and lost the ball but Smith never fully released him and in almost every other type of instance like this its the defender who gets penalized. Walker was trying to offload and a saints hand played at the ball as he was trying to get his arms free, but it was on the blind side of the ref so almost impossible for him to actually see. It should have been a penalty for a ball steal but in most instance like this where the ref can't see exactly how the ball comes out he usually gives a knock on.

I can't believe some people on here are whinging about the Lolohea disallowed try, it was just about as blatant an obstruction as you can get as a Salford player runs straight into Knowles and blocks him and Lolohea then runs straight through that gap that was created.

Overall it was a good, fast clean game with both teams showing total commitment. Credit to Salford as they never buckled, despite Saints being dominant for the majority of the game.  

 

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, swann5 said:

How can a super league ref not know it's illigal to hurdle over a  tackle . 

 

6 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Because it isn't !!

What is illegal is for a player to jump into the tackler with raised knees, which Grace didn't, he was attempting to jump over & around the tackle and not into the tackler

I think it is.

Here's a quote from the Hull FC hall of fame regarding the legendary Billy Batten who perected the art of jumping over an opponent.

"He played Test football on the wing but was best known for his powerful centre play and rather than going around an opponent, he preferred to go over the top of them. He perfected a famous leap (that was later banned) making him one of the most difficult players to bring to ground."

His son Eric carried on the trend...

Image result for billy batten leap

With Halloween coming up I decided to go to my local fancy dress shop to see if I could get a Dracula costume. After a few minutes the assistant handed me a Hull KR shirt asking "Is this suitable?", I replied "I think you may have misheard me, I said I wanted to look like a count."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Devils met the Mayor of Salford  on Sunday. Think it must have been a last minute arrangement. Some great pics of the players who appear to be in fancy dress including the dodgeball outfit.

 

Check out Ian Blease on twitter for more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Red Willow said:

the Devils met the Mayor of Salford  on Sunday. Think it must have been a last minute arrangement. Some great pics of the players who appear to be in fancy dress including the dodgeball outfit.

Check out Ian Blease on twitter for more

Average Joes... awesome. I have the t-shirt!

Great to hear the club getting the recognition for their great season locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back at my laptop, so I can type more easily.

I enjoyed the weekend, though I was absolutely knackered by the end. I don't think I've walked as much for years!

The result was disappointing, but not the effort. A couple of decisions went the wrong way, but Saints were clearly the better team and deserved the win, so "Well done, Saints!"

I met up with Padge and Bob8, along with assorted friends, before the game. Good company, thanks guys! I also got to enjoy some real British ale for the first time in a long time. Sadly, I had to watch my intake as I couldn't guarantee access to a usable toilet afterwards. Well, not at Old Trafford anyway!

Overall, an interesting experience and one I'd like to think I will get another shot at one day soon. I'll try to arrange my itinerary to include at least one night in a hotel, next time. Two consecutive all-nighters are too much for this ancient carcass!

Good luck to everyone next year, but especially to Salford!

 

 

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society

Founder (and, so far, only) member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Presumably then you also think Dudson should have been sin-binned for his head shot on Thompson ? After all it was a swinging arm with direct contact to the head & neck.

If that occurred then yes, I only watched the second half in parts so didn't see it, if you can pinpoint the game time and a link I'll check it out. The saints one stood out as it was a free shot on a totally defenseless player … twice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

If that occurred then yes, I only watched the second half in parts so didn't see it, if you can pinpoint the game time and a link I'll check it out. The saints one stood out as it was a free shot on a totally defenseless player … twice!

The one in the 2nd half, Thompson drives the ball in, Dudson swinging arm straight to the head/neck, Kendall gives the penalty and Saints kick the goal to make the score 20-6.

Funny how a tackle like that only warrants a penalty in your eyes (or you mysteriously didn't see it) but the others committed by saints players warrant yellow cards !

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched the game several times now to get my mind clear.  Saints second try has to be obstruction, surely the rules state that the scrum half must retire when he's put the ball in, he didn't he screened the breakaway player.  And Percival's brilliant individual try, surely the ball was stripped, shouldn't it have been a penalty to Salford?  And the first time Salford crossed the line was brought back for obstruction, 50/50 at best.  Saints play some lovely football, but given the advantages they received on Saturday night, it's not really surprising.

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Trojan said:

I've watched the game several times now to get my mind clear.  Saints second try has to be obstruction, surely the rules state that the scrum half must retire when he's put the ball in, he didn't he screened the breakaway player.  And Percival's brilliant individual try, surely the ball was stripped, shouldn't it have been a penalty to Salford?  And the first time Salford crossed the line was brought back for obstruction, 50/50 at best.  Saints play some lovely football, but given the advantages they received on Saturday night, it's not really surprising.

Yeah but the best team won sadly!

Or Booo! Booo!

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Trojan said:

I've watched the game several times now to get my mind clear.  Saints second try has to be obstruction, surely the rules state that the scrum half must retire when he's put the ball in, he didn't he screened the breakaway player.  And Percival's brilliant individual try, surely the ball was stripped, shouldn't it have been a penalty to Salford?  And the first time Salford crossed the line was brought back for obstruction, 50/50 at best.  Saints play some lovely football, but given the advantages they received on Saturday night, it's not really surprising.

Some real straw grabbing going on here, if that scrum try had been disallowed it would have been ridiculous. Ask yourself if you've ever seen a try disallowed or any team penalised for having a scrum half do that, because I haven't. The obstruction is a penalty now simply because the attacking player stopped in the defensive line. Its a rubbish rule as it doesnt take into account a bad read by a defender but its the rules now and has been for a few seasons. The strip was a strip the ref missed, he made a mistake, the same as pretty much every player on the pitch made a mistake during the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dkw said:

Some real straw grabbing going on here, if that scrum try had been disallowed it would have been ridiculous. Ask yourself if you've ever seen a try disallowed or any team penalised for having a scrum half do that, because I haven't. The obstruction is a penalty now simply because the attacking player stopped in the defensive line. Its a rubbish rule as it doesnt take into account a bad read by a defender but its the rules now and has been for a few seasons. The strip was a strip the ref missed, he made a mistake, the same as pretty much every player on the pitch made a mistake during the game.

Scrum Half's never do that, that is why you rarely see a penalty for it. If the scrum have hadn't illegally done what he did then there wouldn't have been a gaping hole for Taia to run through. The illegal act is precisely where the try came from.

Undoubtedly 2 Saints tries should have been Salford penalties. 12 points is huge in a Grand Final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Scrum Half's never do that, that is why you rarely see a penalty for it. If the scrum have hadn't illegally done what he did then there wouldn't have been a gaping hole for Taia to run through. The illegal act is precisely where the try came from.

Undoubtedly 2 Saints tries should have been Salford penalties. 12 points is huge in a Grand Final.

You seriously claiming scrum halves never run an angle from a scrum? Really? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dkw said:

Some real straw grabbing going on here, if that scrum try had been disallowed it would have been ridiculous. Ask yourself if you've ever seen a try disallowed or any team penalised for having a scrum half do that, because I haven't. The obstruction is a penalty now simply because the attacking player stopped in the defensive line. Its a rubbish rule as it doesnt take into account a bad read by a defender but its the rules now and has been for a few seasons. The strip was a strip the ref missed, he made a mistake, the same as pretty much every player on the pitch made a mistake during the game.

What do I care?  I'm a Fev fan.  But AFAIK the laws say that the attacking scrum half should retire behind the rear feet after he's fed the scrum.  The Saints player clearly didn't do that.  Penalty every day.

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/10/2019 at 13:26, Trojan said:

I've watched the game several times now to get my mind clear.  Saints second try has to be obstruction, surely the rules state that the scrum half must retire when he's put the ball in, he didn't he screened the breakaway player.  And Percival's brilliant individual try, surely the ball was stripped, shouldn't it have been a penalty to Salford?  And the first time Salford crossed the line was brought back for obstruction, 50/50 at best.  Saints play some lovely football, but given the advantages they received on Saturday night, it's not really surprising.

Obstruction was 50/50 at best come on your having a laugh. Logan Tomkins was stood in the defensive line, made no attempt to move, blocked Knowles to the point he had to drag Tomkins out of the way and Lolohea used the gap created to score. The most blatant obstruction ever. The rest of your biased interpretation is also laughable but that is the worst and destroys all your credibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hullste said:

Obstruction was 50/50 at best come on your having a laugh. Logan Tomkins was stood in the defensive line, made no attempt to move, blocked Knowles to the point he had to drag Tomkins out of the way and Lolohea used the gap created to score. The most blatant obstruction ever. The rest of your biased interpretation is also laughable but that is the worst and destroys all your credibility. 

Whether obstruction was 50/50 or not he was clearly offside - penalty.  The laws say the attacking scrum half must retire - he didn't.

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Trojan said:

What do I care?  I'm a Fev fan.  But AFAIK the laws say that the attacking scrum half should retire behind the rear feet after he's fed the scrum.  The Saints player clearly didn't do that.  Penalty every day.

But the laws don't state he must retreat in a backwards motion parallel to the scrum. Given Fages moved away from the scrum and in a backwards motion and then never took part in the play afterwards, then he complied with the laws. It was a very poor read from the Salford defence to follow a non-active retreating player. It was also poor play by the back rowers to didn't break from the scrum quick enough to cover the inside gap. Welham's laziness was then compounded by his whinging that he'd been held in the scrum which the replays clearly show he hadn't, he was just too slow & lazy to react to the situation. 

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trojan said:

"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."

So which of those rules did Fages break given he ran in a backwards direction after the ball came out of the scrum ? Nowhere does it say he cant also run sideways as well as backwards.

Your really clutching at straws if you think that try should have been disallowed for an infringement by Fages. It was a clever scrum play that caught out a few lazy Salford players in the scrum and fooled another one who went for Roby 

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retiring Scrum half (d) Assuming the ball has been correctly scrummaged it is permissible for the scrum half to pick up the ball in the act of retiring providing he commenced to retire
immediately after putting the ball in. As the scrum half who puts the ball in must retire behind his own forwards it should, in the event of the opposing team winning possession, normally give him very little chance of tackling the opposing scrum half. If the latter is tackled in possession the Referee should ensure that the scrum half who puts the ball in is indeed retiring behind his forwards.

 

That reads to me that the scrum half doesn’t have to be retired behind the scrum when the ball comes out provided he’s in the act of doing it. Which makes sense with the modern way of having the hooker play the ball from loose forward. Meaning half the time the ball is passed without the scrum half being behind the scrum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

So which of those rules did Fages break given he ran in a backwards direction after the ball came out of the scrum ? Nowhere does it say he cant also run sideways as well as backwards.

Your really clutching at straws if you think that try should have been disallowed for an infringement by Fages. It was a clever scrum play that caught out a few lazy Salford players in the scrum and fooled another one who went for Roby 

You've got a funny idea of backwards, I hope I've never beside you at traffic lights.

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Retiring Scrum half (d) Assuming the ball has been correctly scrummaged it is permissible for the scrum half to pick up the ball in the act of retiring providing he commenced to retire
immediately after putting the ball in. As the scrum half who puts the ball in must retire behind his own forwards it should, in the event of the opposing team winning possession, normally give him very little chance of tackling the opposing scrum half. If the latter is tackled in possession the Referee should ensure that the scrum half who puts the ball in is indeed retiring behind his forwards.

 

That reads to me that the scrum half doesn’t have to be retired behind the scrum when the ball comes out provided he’s in the act of doing it. Which makes sense with the modern way of having the hooker play the ball from loose forward. Meaning half the time the ball is passed without the scrum half being behind the scrum. 

But he didn't pick the ball out a forward did and Fages shielded him from the tacklers

 

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

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.