Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Drake

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

Who will win?  

106 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  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

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Confused 1

This is captain Juncker speaking. The EU gravy train is about to enter Brussels, so will all Brits please exit at the next stop

To all remaining passengers, thank you for your continued custom and contributions to my pension fund

Kind Regards - YOUR PRESIDENT !

Share this post


Link to post
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."

Edited by Trojan
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

“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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 

  • Haha 1

This is captain Juncker speaking. The EU gravy train is about to enter Brussels, so will all Brits please exit at the next stop

To all remaining passengers, thank you for your continued custom and contributions to my pension fund

Kind Regards - YOUR PRESIDENT !

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Haha 1

“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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

  • Like 1

“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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Trojan said:

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

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the main camera angle you can see that at the moment Fages puts the ball in the scrum that his foot is on the 10m line. Having put the ball in he then first of all retires back behind that line (which can best be seen from the camera angle behind the posts).

All the rules say is that the scrum-half must retire behind his own pack of forwards. It does NOT say he cannnot also run sideways away from the scrum while doing so.

While Fages is still moving back, the St.Helens' forwards then break away from the scrum which then means at that moment there is then no "pack" to retire behind

Fages then does NOT start to move forward until the player with the ball has gone past him and neither does he either obstruct a defender nor interfere in any way with the play.

As a neutral - a try.

 

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

From the main camera angle you can see that at the moment Fages puts the ball in the scrum that his foot is on the 10m line. Having put the ball in he then first of all retires back behind that line (which can best be seen from the camera angle behind the posts).

All the rules say is that the scrum-half must retire behind his own pack of forwards. It does NOT say he cannnot run sideways away from the scrum while doing so.

While Fages is still moving back, the St.Helens' forwards then break away from the scrum which the means at that moment there is then no "pack" to retire behind

Fages then does NOT start to move forward until the player with the ball has gone past him and neither does he either obstruct a defender nor interfere in any way with the play.

As a neutral - a try.

 

Very simple question, at any stage, does Fages retire behind his pack?

The answer is no. He is never behind his pack at any stage of that play.

There is nothing in the rules about retiring behind a 10m line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Very simple question, at any stage, does Fages retire behind his pack?

The answer is no. He is never behind his pack at any stage of that play.

There is nothing in the rules about retiring behind a 10m line.

By the time he puts the ball in and begins to retire then the "pack" is no longer there for him to retire behind.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RL does what Sky says said:

By the time he puts the ball in and begins to retire then the "pack" is no longer there for him to retire behind.

He has to 'immediately' retire behind the pack. Does he do that?

Or does he run sideways to attract the defender?

It is clear what happens, as per my earlier post, if it is something we ignore and it happens all the time, I have no issue. If it should have been a penalty, that is an issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave T said:

He has to 'immediately' retire behind the pack. Does he do that?

Or does he run sideways to attract the defender?

It is clear what happens, as per my earlier post, if it is something we ignore and it happens all the time, I have no issue. If it should have been a penalty, that is an issue. 

Yes he did immediately start to retire behind the back. OK, he ran backwards and to the side but there is nothing in the laws to say he can't do that while neither does it say how quickly or slowly he should retire. While still moving in that direction then the pack broke up and therefore there is no longer a "pack" to retire behind.

The real problem is the way the scrums are operated these days. It might be better if the law was changed to only allow the scrum-half to pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and thus stop all the forwards just breaking away as soon as it is fed.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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, 

  • Like 1

“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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Trojan said:

 I thought their win on Saturday was dodgy to say the least, 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...