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


  • Replies 736
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

At no point did Fages shield anyone from tacklers. That would’ve been out and out obstruction. 

I said he was offside and he was

“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

It would appear to be very clear in the rules, that Fages has to retire behind his own pack of forwards and didn't do this. There is literally nothing that can be said to deny this, no matter how much a Saints fan tries to.

The point ultimately is that we have plenty of things written down in the laws that don't happen in practice, but it would be interesting to know whether it was an officiating error by all of the ref team, or whether it is something that is not enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It would appear to be very clear in the rules, that Fages has to retire behind his own pack of forwards and didn't do this. There is literally nothing that can be said to deny this, no matter how much a Saints fan tries to.

It is quite comical some Saints fans attempts to completely ignore this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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 

‘Retire BEHIND his own pack of forwards’. Does that give you a clue? He was interfering with the defence. Clear penalty to Salford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

It would appear to be very clear in the rules, that Fages has to retire behind his own pack of forwards and didn't do this. There is literally nothing that can be said to deny this, no matter how much a Saints fan tries to.

The point ultimately is that we have plenty of things written down in the laws that don't happen in practice, but it would be interesting to know whether it was an officiating error by all of the ref team, or whether it is something that is not enforced.

I think you know the answer to the bit in bold. It is not enforced. Hasn't been for a long time: hookers packing down at 13 to quickly distribute the ball; scrums breaking up quickly; the LF running the ball etc etc. Lots of examples where the scrum half doesn't get behind the scrum. We see it every single game. Nobody would have noticed Fages' actions if SKY hadn't mentioned it; and they never mention it every single game throughout the season. Their intent was to stir a bit of controversy fully knowing that rule is not enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I think you know the answer to the bit in bold. It is not enforced. Hasn't been for a long time: hookers packing down at 13 to quickly distribute the ball; scrums breaking up quickly; the LF running the ball etc etc. Lots of examples where the scrum half doesn't get behind the scrum. We see it every single game. Nobody would have noticed Fages' actions if SKY hadn't mentioned it; and they never mention it every single game throughout the season. Their intent was to stir a bit of controversy fully knowing that rule is not enforced.

I suppose the difference here is that Fages was a key player in that try. He was the decoy and sucked in the defence. 

And I don't think we do see it every single game. Not anywhere near. 

The point is here that if he doesn't get back onside then surely he can't join in with play, which he does. 

But that then brings us onto the point that there are plenty of 'rules' that are written but ignored. Is this one of those, or was it an error?

EDIT: Just stuck a random game on Sky that I had on the box and tbh, the main play at scrums now is the scrum half puts the ball in, the loose forward passes it from the base, and the scrum half walks round behind the scrum to set for the next play. Attacking plays involving the scrum half at a scrum are extremely rare. 

Once you get involved in an attacking play you have to be onside.

I watched a handful of scrums with both George Williams and Dec Patton feeding it and they both retired behind the scrum each time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Trojan said:

I said he was offside and he was

Lots of players are offside during a game at different points as long as they don’t get involved the game carries on. Can you remember the last time you saw a scrum half penalised for not retreating at the scrum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bod said:

If Hastings had done this would you all be up in arms? NO you wouldn't, it would have been seen as a great move. The hatred on here from the usual suspects is frankly pathetic.

We had our own try disallowed for obstruction. Why wasn’t Saints try disallowed aswell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Lots of players are offside during a game at different points as long as they don’t get involved the game carries on. Can you remember the last time you saw a scrum half penalised for not retreating at the scrum. 

You'll say anything, he ran sideways and forwards, he screened the ball carrier.  He was offside and interfering with play. Penalty, every time.  As I posted earlier. I don't care one way or the other.  I'm a big admirer of Saints, but I thought their win on Saturday was dodgy to say the least, 

“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, bobbruce said:

At no point did Fages shield anyone from tacklers. That would’ve been out and out obstruction. 

Lolohea was watching and going after Fages who was in an offside position. Clear as day. He obstructed a defender. Penalty to Salford. But no, McManus might have been annoyed. So let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FearTheVee said:

We were very dominant bar a brief spell in the first half - to say the win was "dodgy to say the least" is pretty daft.

I don’t think any Salford fans, myself included, have said that Saints weren’t  the better team and they deserved to win. But for crying out loud, it would have been good to have been given a chance to win, even if we had ultimately failed. But with Saints, we are used to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Lots of players are offside during a game at different points as long as they don’t get involved the game carries on. Can you remember the last time you saw a scrum half penalised for not retreating at the scrum. 

I agree with the first point, but once they get involved they should be pulled. Fages was a key player in that try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Trojan said:

You'll say anything, he ran sideways and forwards, he screened the ball carrier. 

Go and watch the game again as that is wrong.

He ran sideways and backwards. Now I can be honest and say (especially if we use the VAR tool to plot the line on the ground) that he likely did not retreat far enough back to ensure he was behind the legs of the pack's last man. But he ran away from pack screening nobody. He basically acted like a dummy runner but not into the defensive line; away from it towards the touchline and basically the furthest man to that left-hand touchline on the field at the time. It was a shocking read by Lolohea heightened by the rest of the Salford pack being lazy and not breaking quickly.

As I have said, I can live with people arguing Fages didn't quite make it back completely behind the line of the last man; but he screened/impeded nobody and the try ultimately was a result of poor collective defence from Salford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree with the first point, but once they get involved they should be pulled. Fages was a key player in that try.

I don’t disagree technically but the fact I haven’t seen a scrum half give a penalty away for this in 25 years tells me this is not something refs are looking for. Maybe they should but I’m not sure a grand final is when that should start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I don’t disagree technically but the fact I haven’t seen a scrum half give a penalty away for this in 25 years tells me this is not something refs are looking for. Maybe they should but I’m not sure a grand final is when that should start. 

Can you highlight another try like that though?

Most scrums see the scrum half end their involvement at putting the ball in the scrum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I don’t disagree technically but the fact I haven’t seen a scrum half give a penalty away for this in 25 years tells me this is not something refs are looking for. Maybe they should but I’m not sure a grand final is when that should start. 

It never happens the way Fages did it that's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I suppose the difference here is that Fages was a key player in that try. He was the decoy and sucked in the defence. 

And I don't think we do see it every single game. Not anywhere near. 

The point is here that if he doesn't get back onside then surely he can't join in with play, which he does. 

But that then brings us onto the point that there are plenty of 'rules' that are written but ignored. Is this one of those, or was it an error?

EDIT: Just stuck a random game on Sky that I had on the box and tbh, the main play at scrums now is the scrum half puts the ball in, the loose forward passes it from the base, and the scrum half walks round behind the scrum to set for the next play. Attacking plays involving the scrum half at a scrum are extremely rare. 

Once you get involved in an attacking play you have to be onside.

I watched a handful of scrums with both George Williams and Dec Patton feeding it and they both retired behind the scrum each time.

It's all down to interpretation isn't it. Where do constitute the line Fages should retire behind is at the time? Where the scrum was packed down, where the last man in the scrum ended up or where the scrum ended up? I don't think the rules make reference to that so are not clear. So where do you draw the line? It's a grey area... so down to interpretation. Both the referee (gave the try), the touch judges and video referee all interpreted it as a try...

Ah I don't know... as a trained referee I think it's a grey area! ? 

I like the example you give about the random SKY game and setting up for the next play. For argument's sake, Fages could (not saying he is!) have been setting up for the next play expecting Roby to be tackled. He doesn't retreat behind the line where the original scrum was formed. Do you call a penalty if he gets the ball on the next tackle to try and score in the corner? Or is he know onside?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Didn't somebody on the TV say Cronulla scored a similar try in a big game; maybe one of the recent Grand Finals?

Scraping the barrell a little there.

I can guarantee if Salford had scored a try like that then all the Saints fans on here would be saying it was a penalty. Saying that Kendall would have probably given a penalty too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

It never happens the way Fages did it that's why.

Because it never happens most times the hooker has passed the ball out of the back of the scrum before the scrum half has even stood up straight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is as legal as the Saints fans are trying to make out then I fully expect every team to start doing plenty of this. We'll have scrum halfs running across the defensive line and interfering aplenty. If done correctly the attacking team will always have an advantage close to the line, as happened with Fages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Because it never happens most times the hooker has passed the ball out of the back of the scrum before the scrum half has even stood up straight. 

You are trying to justify foul play with a completely different action. The scrum half is not interfering with play in that example. Its like the way players run behind their own players all the time but it's only penalised as obstruction when it causes interference to the defensive line.

The moment Fages dragged Lolehea out of line he was interfering with play and should have been penalised. Even the most one eyed Saints fan should be able to see that the gap is caused by Fages being in an illegal position and foul play, otherwise there would be no gap.

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.