Thurs 1st Oct SL : Castleford Tigers v Hull FC KO 19:45 SKY

[Gates1]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

Have you actually read what I posted. Your claim of how to referee a game would result in every offending team causing a melee in order to stop the advantage. 
Anyway it is clear that you will continue to, wrong defend, Powell no matter what so nothing more can be said & I will leave you to your theories 

The point is Cas didnt instigate the melee, Cator did by running to a retreating Cas player and throwing him to the floor (which regardless of violent conduct is an obstruction at the very least). You can't continue playing advantage when the team in possesion commits an offence.  It really is that simple!

Edited October 3, 2020 by Gates1

[corvusxiii]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

Have you actually read what I posted. Your claim of how to referee a game would result in every offending team causing a melee in order to stop the advantage. 
Anyway it is clear that you will continue to, wrong defend, Powell no matter what so nothing more can be said & I will leave you to your theories 

So if after the Cator/O'Neil incident, or any penalty in fact, because the Ref decides: Advantage, Hull are allowed a free hit on the opposition? 

Should a 5 minute 13 v 13 punch up follo, the Ref should not stop play because he is still playing advantage? 

Play has to stop at the second incident or else things will get silly.

I suppose I'm asking what does a retaliating player have to do to stop play whether Advantage is being played or not.

 

 

[LeeF]

6 minutes ago, corvusxiii said:

So if after the Cator/O'Neil incident, or any penalty in fact, because the Ref decides: Advantage, Hull are allowed a free hit on the opposition? 

Should a 5 minute 13 v 13 punch up follo, the Ref should not stop play because he is still playing advantage? 

Play has to stop at the second incident or else things will get silly.

I suppose I'm asking what does a retaliating player have to do to stop play whether Advantage is being played or not.

 

 

13 v 13 would mean play has stopped

Judge every incident on its merits. Play on was correct on Thursday. Awarding the try was correct. A late hit on a player was wrong. Powell getting upset again was wrong albeit funny. Posters on here trying to defend Powell is highly amusing

[Dunedan]

On 02/10/2020 at 14:06, LeeF said:

Ok I see your logic but every foul will then result in a “flare” up by the offending team to stop advantage ever being played

I spent the best part of an hour saying pretty much the same thing as dwk and got nothing but "have you ever watched before", "those aren't the rules", "stop digging"...

[Dunedan]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

13 v 13 would mean play has stopped

Judge every incident on its merits. Play on was correct on Thursday. Awarding the try was correct. A late hit on a player was wrong. Powell getting upset again was wrong albeit funny. Posters on here trying to defend Powell is highly amusing

It's strange - dwk has said exactly the same as myself, corvus and Gates have said, and you agreed with him but not us. Odd.

I have no problem with the ref playing on. Cas players should've got on with the game. But an infringement by Hull should have stopped play, with Hull getting the a penalty for the first offence. The question then is, does Cator going after O'Neill constitue an infringement. I'd say yes. The refs either didn't see it or don't agree. So it goes.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

41 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

It's strange - dwk has said exactly the same as myself, corvus and Gates have said, and you agreed with him but not us. Odd.

I have no problem with the ref playing on. Cas players should've got on with the game. But an infringement by Hull should have stopped play, with Hull getting the a penalty for the first offence. The question then is, does Cator going after O'Neill constitue an infringement. I'd say yes. The refs either didn't see it or don't agree. So it goes.

To be honest, I agree. I don't see how play could go on when the team with advantage has committed an offence. Should have stopped and gone back to the first offence. I'd be annoyed if that try was conceded against us.

[Rupert Prince]

On 02/10/2020 at 12:31, Gooleboy said:

You can't miss it being Wheldon Road with the giant Pigeon Loft opposite the TV Cameras.

Id like to say i could not see because i was watching on a lap top. But we have just bought a giant TV screen and i had connected it to the tv!

(just as well i did not buy that in the expectation of watching the cup final )

[LeeF]

The Disciplinary’s last word on the O’Neil/ Cator incident

Player makes contact on opponent after the ball is released. Player pushes opponent in the back, force is deemed to be low. Worthy of onfield penalty. Referee played advantage. Player goes to ground with opponent after opponent reacts to contact.

 

http://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_docs/MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES FINAL 20201005v2.pdf

[Dunedan]

*sigh*

Again, it comes down to whether or not Cator's reaction constitutes an infringement under the laws. I'd say yes. A handful of other posters agree. The officials didn't.

So it goes.

[corvusxiii]

30 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

*sigh*

Again, it comes down to whether or not Cator's reaction constitutes an infringement under the laws. I'd say yes. A handful of other posters agree. The officials didn't.

So it goes.

Until next time no doubt.