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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 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.

Not the same but they are still interfering with play in that instead of retiring behind the scrum they just stood in a position which prevents an opponent from tackling the player in possession.

If you feel Fages should have been penalised then why not for these instances during the Wigan v Salford match ?

 

Share this post


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

Not the same but they are still interfering with play in that instead of retiring behind the scrum they just stood in a position which prevents an opponent from tackling the player in possession.

If you feel Fages should have been penalised then why not for these instances during the Wigan v Salford match ?

 

No they are not, you are just creating a strawman argument.

If you read what you quoted then the answer to this should be self evident. They are not interfering with play and the logic is exactly the same as the logic behind why we don't penalise every offside or every obstruction.

Fages blatantly interfered and affected play and this resulted for the gap for Taia. This is undeniable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by hullste
Error
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Damien said:

No they are not, you are just creating a strawman argument.

If you read what you quoted then the answer to this should be self evident. They are not interfering with play and the logic is exactly the same as the logic behind why we don't penalise every offside or every obstruction.

Fages blatantly interfered and affected play and this resulted for the gap for Taia. This is undeniable.

So you obviously don't think that the players should have been penalised in the Wigan v Salford match when instead of retiring behind their own pack (indeed, not even making any move at all, which at least Fages did) the two scrum-halves just stood still and in a position blocking a clear run by an opponent ?

My other point, of course, is that the "pack" had already broken up when Fages was still crouching down at the side of the scrum (ie the Saints' loose-forward had already come away from the scrum) and therefore there was no pack to retire behind.

The laws of the game state...

"Scrums" (6 d) 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.

It also states under "Glossary of Terms" ...

Forward  .... As applied to a player it means one who is at the time packing down in the scrum.

Therefore if a player has come out of the scrum then he is NOT considered as a forward and if so the scrum-half has no need to go behind him as he is only required to go behind the "forwards".

 

 

Share this post


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

The laws of the game state...

"Scrums" (6 d) 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.

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


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

So what about when there is no pack to retire behind ?

What about it? Saints had a pack unless you are now trying to say all 6 players just vanished from that area.

All you are doing is contradicting yourself and rambling on about 2 scrums in a different match that bare absolutely no relation to what actually happened in the Grand Final. There was no obstruction and there was no interference in either of those 2 scrums. If you can't see that then I can only conclude that you are disingenuous.

When you decide what you are actually trying to argue and present a cohesive argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Share this post


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

What about it? Saints had a pack unless you are now trying to say all 6 players just vanished from that area.

All you are doing is contradicting yourself and rambling on about 2 scrums in a different match that bare absolutely no relation to what actually happened in the Grand Final. There was no obstruction and there was no interference in either of those 2 scrums. If you can't see that then I can only conclude that you are disingenuous.

When you decide what you are actually trying to argue and present a cohesive argument.

And I can only conclude that you just want an argument and throw out insults instead of just trying to discuss the matter. Yes have a different opinion but why the insults ?

Whether some people like the rule or not, the fact is that, according to the laws of the game, Saints did not have a "pack" as soon as the loose-forward and second-rows detached themselves from it as a"pack" is a group of forwards and a "forward" is defined as a player in the scrum - once they come out they are not a forward and, again according to how the law is written, the scrum-half does not have to go behind them.

Share this post


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

And I can only conclude that you just want an argument and throw out insults instead of just trying to discuss the matter. Yes have a different opinion but why the insults ?

Whether some people like the rule or not, the fact is that, according to the laws of the game, Saints did not have a "pack" as soon as the loose-forward and second-rows detached themselves from it as a"pack" is a group of forwards and a "forward" is defined as a player in the scrum - once they come out they are not a forward and, again according to how the law is written, the scrum-half does not have to go behind them.

I have not insulted you. Not once in fact. it's pretty poor if you are now resorting to that nonsense because your arguments are being shown up.

You just don't make sense and are constantly contradicting yourself to the extent that you are quoting rules that contradict your own argument and citing scrums that bare no relation to the scrum in question. You also conveniently ignore points that are raised that disprove your view.

Nothing you have quoted has said that Saints did not have a pack. A description of a forward in a glossary of terms certainly does not do this.

Share this post


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

You also conveniently ignore points that are raised that disprove your view.

Maybe in the same way as you ignored answering this ....

1 hour ago, RL does what Sky says said:

So you obviously don't think that the players should have been penalised in the Wigan v Salford match when instead of retiring behind their own pack (indeed, not even making any move at all, which at least Fages did) the two scrum-halves just stood still and in a position blocking a clear run by an opponent ?

EDIT ... Apology, I have just seen an answer in a later post.

We obviously have different views as for me the two players in the Wigan v Salford match did nothing different to Fages (ie they didn't actually obstruct anyone yet they did get in a position which could have affected the way an opponent moved).

However, either they all should be penalised or none of them.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


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

Maybe in the same way as you ignored answering this ....

EDIT ... Apology, I have just seen an answer in a later post.

We obviously have different views as for me the two players in the Wigan v Salford match did nothing different to Fages (ie they didn't actually obstruct anyone yet they did get in a position which could have affected the way an opponent moved).

However, either they all should be penalised or none of them.

In fact Hastings in the Wigan game was worse because he just stood there. We’ve been shown the laws that state he must immediately retreat to the back of the scrum. 

Share this post


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

However, either they all should be penalised or none of them.

We don't penalise all obstructions and all offsides. We only do when the player is interfering with play. I don't see why scrum situations should be any different.

Share this post


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

We don't penalise all obstructions and all offsides. We only do when the player is interfering with play. I don't see why scrum situations should be any different.

Agreed, yet it's all down to interpretation. For me if Fages was to be penalised then so were the two players in the Wigan v Salford match, you see it otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

In fact Hastings in the Wigan game was worse because he just stood there. We’ve been shown the laws that state he must immediately retreat to the back of the scrum. 

Agreed and in my view he stood in the way in case an opponent tried to quickly get round to tackle the player who had picked up the ball from the scrum. As with Fages, he didn't actually obstruct anyone but his action (or lack of it by not moving away from that position) affected the play of the other team and yet I don't remember anyone complaining about him not retiring behind the scrum on that occasion.

 

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


RESURGAM

Non solum autem Leones

Share this post


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

Agreed, yet it's all down to interpretation. For me if Fages was to be penalised then so were the two players in the Wigan v Salford match, you see it otherwise.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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.

According to the Laws of the Game obstruction is defined as " the illegal act of impeding an opponent who does not have the ball."

Therefore which player did Fages impede for you to say it was obstruction ?

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...