Jump to content
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

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by GeordieSaint
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnh1 said:

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

How can he retire behind the pack if the pack is no longer there ? The "pack" is when the forwards are linked together, not when they have become individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the incident frame by frame (seen from the main camera angle), the St.Helens' loose forward actually begins to detach himself from the scrum while Fages is still in a crouching position at the side of the scrum and before he has even had a chance of retiring back.

Therefore at that point the "pack" is no longer there.

By the time Fages has made one step away from the scrum then both the St.Helens' second rowers have also broke away. Therefore how can Fages retire behind a pack which in no longer there ?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Damien said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

How can he retire behind the pack if the pack is no longer there ? The "pack" is when the forwards are linked together, not when they have become individuals.

He put the ball in the scrum. He should immediately retire behind the pack that is there. He didn’t and should have been penalised.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

He put the ball in the scrum. He should immediately retire behind the pack that is there. He didn’t and should have been penalised.

So how could he when the pack had broken up before he even stood up straight after putting the ball in ? He never had time to do so.

If people think this is the first time a scrum-half has not retired then watch this from the Wigan v Salford semi-final ...

Go to 51.50 of actual play (58.30 on the video) and also 57.30 of actual play (1.04.50 on the video).

On both occasions - and one for each team - the scrum-half puts the ball in and doesn't even make an attempt to retire yet play continues.

If some people say about Fages in the final that he also got in the way of the play then it could also be argued that by just standing there in the video above that the scrum-half has blocked the possible path of an opponent who might have tried to tackle the player in possession ?

Therefore if you want penalties for such things then why hasn't it been mentioned before ?

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


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

So how could he when the pack had broken up before he even stood up straight after putting the ball in ? He never had time to do so.

If people think this is the first time a scrum-half has not retired then watch this from the Wigan v Salford semi-final ...

Go to 51.50 of actual play (58.30 on the video) and also 57.30 of actual play (1.04.50 on the video).

On both occasions - and one for each team - the scrum-half puts the ball in and doesn't even make an attempt to retire yet play continues.

If some people say about Fages in the final that he also got in the way of the play then it could also be argued that by just standing there in the video above that the scrum-half has blocked the possible path of an opponent who might have tried to tackle the player in possession ?

Therefore if you want penalties for such things then why hasn't it been mentioned before ?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1

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...