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

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, GeordieSaint said:

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.

I'd say this is only half right. He didnt block anyone, as you say he was in effect a dummy runner. But rather than being a poor defensive read, it was brought on by being 2 on 1 which it wouldn't have been had Fages retired to the back of the scrum, which is the whole point. Saints created a 2 on 1 using an offside player.

For clarity, as per my comment much earlier in the thread, I dint think it makes a difference, I think Saints were a step ahead for 80% of the game.

Personally I'm interested in the interpretation side of this.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

Seem to recall Hull KR pulling off a similar move a couple of times. think it was in the middle eights a couple of years back.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

On 17/10/2019 at 12:53, 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.

would have made it 14-15, if St.Kendall doesn't chalk off their other try and Salford settle for a kick at goal for that pen under stains posts which could easily have been more pressure/repeat set. It would certainly have been a totally different game and hugely more entertaining and with at least one Stains player in the bin at best who knows what the outcome would have been.

Forever to be known as plastic champions and an asterisk by their name for that season's GF! 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

27 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. 

whataboutery

[GeordieSaint]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'd say this is only half right. He didnt block anyone, as you say he was in effect a dummy runner. But rather than being a poor defensive read, it was brought on by being 2 on 1 which it wouldn't have been had Fages retired to the back of the scrum, which is the whole point. Saints created a 2 on 1 using an offside player.

I am not just referring to Lolohea; it’s a collective defensive misread. The Salford scrum was lazy and slow breaking away. I appreciate its easy from a bird’s eye view rather than at pitch level but Saints stacked one side (which Salford mirrored) leaving 20mins of field open on their left... So Salford should have realised that space was a real danger and split the scrum to cover it, especially as they were on their own line. Does that make sense? 

[bobbruce]

17 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

whataboutery

Yes it is whataboutery that’s the point you can’t referee a sport a certain way for twenty years and then suddenly decide you will penalise offences in grand final  that refs have completely ignored. I have no problem with the interpretation changing and this being enforced but for me you would have to stop the loose forward/hooker playing the ball until the scrum half has got back onside. 

[GeordieSaint]

52 minutes ago, Damien said:

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.

Eh? Don’t think I am. Somebody suggested either on the TV or on here that Cronulla have done something similar in a big game. It would be a good analysis to compare. I’ll see if I can find it and the one Jill mentions. 

And I disagree with your last comment; not all club fans are that tribal. A few people on here like me were critical of McManus for example after the Challenge Cup.
 

 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I am not just referring to Lolohea; it’s a collective defensive misread. The Salford scrum was lazy and slow breaking away. I appreciate its easy from a bird’s eye view rather than at pitch level but Saints stacked one side (which Salford mirrored) leaving 20mins of field open on their left... So Salford should have realised that space was a real danger and split the scrum to cover it, especially as they were on their own line. Does that make sense? 

Yeah that's fair enough on the misread mate.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

Can you really not understand the difference between someone interfering with play and not? Those examples are nothing like what Fages did.

Indeed. Players are offside quite regularly in attack and defence and often only penalised if they get involved.

[hullste]

Fages was not offside the ref didn't think so and neither did the video ref when it was referred to him, end of. 

[Bob8]

On 13/10/2019 at 23:27, Jim Prendle said:

I agree with you.

However, Man United's stewards are among the worst in any sport. They will do very little, if anything, to persuade anyone to stop using language like that.

We used to have a corporate table at Old Trafford, and I once took some Everton fans to watch a game there against Man U. The way they were treated by the stewards was the final straw for me, and having held that £20,000 per season table for 10 years, we never went back.

Perhaps so.

My own personal experience, in the nose bleeds with pretty much only Salford fans around me (as a Saints fan), is that the stewerds were friendly and very complimentary about us lot.

[Bleep1673]

I watched the BBC Highlights this morning, sorry it had been so late, if Swinton was there, I would too.

It was an enthralling match, the Pinks were unlucky in some of the calls, but arn't they always? Stains were always chosen favourites, sorry pinks fans, I think the Pinks did quite well to only lose by 17 points. 

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, johnh1 said:

Maybe a Salford player should have grabbed Fages shirt and thrown him to the ground, like Saints did to Tomkins, and Salford would then have won the penalty. Both were obstructing the defence.

Fages was barely within 5m of a Salford player after he fed the scrum so throwing him to the ground would have been quite hard. He ran away from the scrum after all so not sure how he was actually obstructing any player.

[Damien]

34 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Fages was barely within 5m of a Salford player after he fed the scrum so throwing him to the ground would have been quite hard. He ran away from the scrum after all so not sure how he was actually obstructing any player.

Oh come on Lolohea is within 1m-2m of Fages all the way. No one being within 5m is just nonsense.

[GeordieSaint]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Oh come on Lolohea is within 1m-2m of Fages all the way. No one being within 5m is just nonsense.

I meant the scrum; so happy to be proven wrong if Lolohea if he's 1-2m away. It's still not obstructing though.

[hullste]

5 hours ago, johnh1 said:

Maybe a Salford player should have grabbed Fages shirt and thrown him to the ground, like Saints did to Tomkins, and Salford would then have won the penalty. Both were obstructing the defence.

Not the same in the slightest Tomkins was stood in the defensive line, Fages was no where near the defensive line. Talk about double standards on here. Similar situations to Tomkins' have been given as obstruction all year. I have not seen 1 penalty given for a scrum half not retreating behind the scrum because no scrum half does it anymore. 

[johnh1]

Fages was offside and interfering with the Salford defensive line. That is obstruction. I really cannot see how anyone can disagree with that. It resulted in the try that ‘won’ the game for Saints. There was no coming back from that. If Saints fans are happy with that, especially McManus, then that’s fine.

[hullste]

45 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

Fages was offside and interfering with the Salford defensive line. That is obstruction. I really cannot see how anyone can disagree with that. It resulted in the try that ‘won’ the game for Saints. There was no coming back from that. If Saints fans are happy with that, especially McManus, then that’s fine.

There was no interference with the defensive line, Roby(back of the pack) moved in front of him to play him onside, he never stood in the defensive line unlike Tomkins. You need to jog on pal

[johnh1]

Er....Lolohea. Fages was offside and you can see quite clearly that his defensive effort was taken up watching him which created the gap elsewhere.

[johnh1]

6 hours ago, hullste said:

There was no interference with the defensive line, Roby(back of the pack) moved in front of him to play him onside, he never stood in the defensive line unlike Tomkins. You need to jog on pal

Sorry for having an opinion different to yours, ‘pal’.Fages ran across and in front of the defensive line in an offside position. 

[hullste]

On 20/10/2019 at 03:12, johnh1 said:

Sorry for having an opinion different to yours, ‘pal’.Fages ran across and in front of the defensive line in an offside position. 

Unfortunately for you both the referee and the video referee agreed with me. Nevermind hopefully you won't have to wait too long before you reach another final. 

[Dave T]

On 19/10/2019 at 20:02, johnh1 said:

Fages was offside and interfering with the Salford defensive line. That is obstruction. I really cannot see how anyone can disagree with that. It resulted in the try that ‘won’ the game for Saints. There was no coming back from that. If Saints fans are happy with that, especially McManus, then that’s fine.

It isn't obstruction John. He was offside. And interfering with play so it should have been pulled. Offside, not obstruction.

[Dave T]

On 19/10/2019 at 20:02, johnh1 said:

Fages was offside and interfering with the Salford defensive line. That is obstruction. I really cannot see how anyone can disagree with that. It resulted in the try that ‘won’ the game for Saints. There was no coming back from that. If Saints fans are happy with that, especially McManus, then that’s fine.

It isn't obstruction John. He was offside. And interfering with play so it should have been pulled. Offside, not obstruction.

[Manx RL]

Who won?