Fri 27 Nov: SL Grand Final: Wigan Warriors v St Helens KO 8pm (Sky)

[Saint Toppy]

4 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

 

As you say Hasings tackle was not on the head. It was not a foul.   I can only assume the touchjudge's dad was a Pilkington's pensioner.  Kendall had ignored it.

 

That isn't what I wrote at all !

First point of contact was on the chest but his arm then rode up and hit him in the face - so that's still a foul and a penalty.

[Exiled Wiganer]

3 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Rugby balls regularly go straight, but obviously sometimes they don't.  It's pot luck what happens and how you defend it when you are waiting to see if it hits the post or not.

And as I remember it Wigan received 2 clear high shots that were not given.  Probably one of those gave Burgess a broken jaw.

As you say Hasings tackle was not on the head. It was not a foul.   I can only assume the touchjudge's dad was a Pilkington's pensioner.  Kendall had ignored it.

It's all down to luck.  Wigan moved the ball well when they had a chance and came close before getting their try.  IF it had been the winning try it would have been apposite since it came from a Saints off side. 

An on a wider point that may go unremarked, I thought both sides were generally off side but ignored.  This may account for the lack of space for three-quarter play. It may encourage drives up the middle.  I think this is bad for the game. I thought (others may differ) Wigan moved the ball wide better than Saints and frankly, genuinely, I was surprised at that. 

Saint Toppy is a pure fan. Saints have never failed to deserve to lose any game he has watched. Tbh, we got off lightly with only one decision going against them. Had the ball not bounced freakishly and they had lost, we would have had 10,000 instances. Basically, they gamed the end of the season by ducking out of a trip to France they didn’t fancy, and had marginally more in the tank at the end as a consequence. Post vaccine, they won’t have that option next year, happily. 

[derk]

you are saying that wigan ducked out of playing catalans-very wise after seeing what st.helens had to put up with in the semi

[derk]

1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

Rugby balls regularly go straight, but obviously sometimes they don't.  It's pot luck what happens and how you defend it when you are waiting to see if it hits the post or not.

And as I remember it Wigan received 2 clear high shots that were not given.  Probably one of those gave Burgess a broken jaw.

As you say Hasings tackle was not on the head. It was not a foul.   I can only assume the touchjudge's dad was a Pilkington's pensioner.  Kendall had ignored it.

It's all down to luck.  Wigan moved the ball well when they had a chance and came close before getting their try.  IF it had been the winning try it would have been apposite since it came from a Saints off side. 

An on a wider point that may go unremarked, I thought both sides were generally off side but ignored.  This may account for the lack of space for three-quarter play. It may encourage drives up the middle.  I think this is bad for the game. I thought (others may differ) Wigan moved the ball wide better than Saints and frankly, genuinely, I was surprised at that. 

burgess was injured as a result of a wild tackle on a saints player when he(burgess) was also in the tackle

[usain bolt]

Was Graham an actual dummy runner and went through the line or was he a support player anticipating receiving a pass before the line?

If he was a support player, surly he didn't deserve to be flattened, possible broken rib scenario, just in case he did receive the ball. Tackling a player without the ball in any situation is a penalty.

[Bod]

23 minutes ago, derk said:

burgess was injured as a result of a wild tackle on a saints player when he(burgess) was also in the tackle

From Isa

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

And as I remember it Wigan received 2 clear high shots that were not given.  Probably one of those gave Burgess a broken jaw.

Absolute nonsense.

[Bod]

10 minutes ago, usain bolt said:

Was Graham an actual dummy runner and went through the line or was he a support player anticipating receiving a pass before the line?

If he was a support player, surly he didn't deserve to be flattened, possible broken rib scenario, just in case he did receive the ball. Tackling a player without the ball in any situation is a penalty.

Or worse as with Matty Lees.

[FearTheVee]

6 hours ago, andyscoot said:

Yep. In situations like that with the opposition so close to your line, you don't have the luxury of waiting to see if the guy gets the ball before you commit. As a dummy runner, you know you'll probably get smashed so close to the line. This happens in loads of games, the only difference is Leuluai folded Graham and drew attention to it.

Must be why players get hit off the ball like that all the time near the try line.  Hang on a minute . . . . .

[andyscoot]

30 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Must be why players get hit off the ball like that all the time near the try line.  Hang on a minute . . . . .

Except they do, they just don't often get hit as hard and go to ground.

Try and make a note next time you watch a game especially when it's not your own team or Wigan playing so there can be no bias. Players have to commit to tackling someone without the ball all the time, that's why we see the video ref involved to determine obstruction for tries that start close to the line.

Sorry, that's rational; Kendall bad, Kendall Wigan player. Saints hard done to.

That make you feel better?

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Absolute nonsense.

Wot... a clear head smack on Wigan player went unpunished?   My eyes (both of them!) saw someone hit, i think it was Gildart.  I am not really criticizing the ref, although he gave a penalty for a Saints 2 pointer.  He saw and ignored the supposed foul by Hastings.  Only the merry flag waver called it. 

[Liverpool Rover]

If that ending had happened at Old Trafford the ball would have gone dead with the narrow in goal areas that there would have been.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

Wot... a clear head smack on Wigan player went unpunished?   My eyes (both of them!) saw someone hit, i think it was Gildart.  I am not really criticizing the ref, although he gave a penalty for a Saints 2 pointer.  He saw and ignored the supposed foul by Hastings.  Only the merry flag waver called it. 

You claimed a high tackles gave burgess a broken jaw, that was absolutely nonsense.

[usain bolt]

1 hour ago, andyscoot said:

Except they do, they just don't often get hit as hard and go to ground.

Try and make a note next time you watch a game especially when it's not your own team or Wigan playing so there can be no bias. Players have to commit to tackling someone without the ball all the time, that's why we see the video ref involved to determine obstruction for tries that start close to the line.

Sorry, that's rational; Kendall bad, Kendall Wigan player. Saints hard done to.

That make you feel better?

Was Graham a support player, anticipating receiving the ball, or a dummy runner running through the line?  There's a difference a player being pole axed going through the defensive line and a defender reading wrong who's getting the ball,  from one maybe receiving a pass backwards as part of an attacking line who doesn't actually receive the ball.

Where does it stop, take all the attacking line out, just in case they receive the ball when close to the line. 

[GeordieSaint]

Have the match and player stats been published yet?

[hindle xiii]

I didn't see the game but I happened upon hearing John Kear creaming his knickers on 5 Live SX. I saw the ending on a YouTube video, I can see why it was exciting. Gen Z Wide to West.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

You claimed a high tackles gave burgess a broken jaw, that was absolutely nonsense.

To be fair it was a reckless high tackle but it was just by his own team mate. 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, usain bolt said:

Was Graham an actual dummy runner and went through the line or was he a support player anticipating receiving a pass before the line?

If he was a support player, surly he didn't deserve to be flattened, possible broken rib scenario, just in case he did receive the ball. Tackling a player without the ball in any situation is a penalty.

Yup, have to agree with this. You can't tackle ayers off the ball, the cynic in me says it was a cheap shot on a prone player, being generous you'd describe it as a mistimed tackle. 

Either way, it is on a player who does not have the ball. Penalty. 

[FearTheVee]

1 hour ago, GeordieSaint said:

Have the match and player stats been published yet?

Come on now, it's only three days later. . . . . Rubbish isn't it

[andyscoot]

2 hours ago, usain bolt said:

Was Graham a support player, anticipating receiving the ball, or a dummy runner running through the line?  There's a difference a player being pole axed going through the defensive line and a defender reading wrong who's getting the ball,  from one maybe receiving a pass backwards as part of an attacking line who doesn't actually receive the ball.

Where does it stop, take all the attacking line out, just in case they receive the ball when close to the line. 

From a defenders perspective, it makes no difference if the player is a dummy runner or not; they're a player who may get the ball so you cover them.

The reason he got away with it was because it was goal line. That happens on the 50m line and it's a penalty. When the ptb is basically on your line and a prop forward runs at you (expecting the ball or as a dummy runner) you have to commit. By the time you've stood back to see, he's got the ball and gone over you.

Where does it stop? Don't be daft. Graham was clearly running onto that ball and the dummy half decided against it. Its a reasonable assumption to say Graham gets the ball there and the lines are so close that you simply don't have the time to sit back and wait and see. As I say, this happens on the 50m line and it's a penalty because the two sides are so much further apart at the ptb.

I'd hate to share a defensive line with some of you.

[derk]

to summarize.-  1 wigan would have won if they could have resisted habitual high tackles  2 graham was fouled in the third minute and st. helens should have been awarded a penalty  3 B urgess was injured by a team-mate being reckless  4 the referee allowed a lot of offside from both sides but because  wigan should have been on their own line for long periods it was made more obvious that they were guilty more often 5 did nobody notice Farrell pulling Naquaimas hair in a tackle in the second half(64 )  a girly trick ,maybe hair envy

[GUBRATS]

On 29/11/2020 at 11:19, Ullman said:

In the post-match interview with the BBC Lam said Hardaker was asked if he was confident about landing it and the answer was yes.

When ever does a player say no in those circumstances ?

[Ullman]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

When ever does a player say no in those circumstances ?

I thought the same thing.

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, FearTheVee said:

Come on now, it's only three days later. . . . . Rubbish isn't it

https://mobile.twitter.com/SuperLeague/status/1332632828966625280/photo/1

Some basic ones here... a lot closer in terms of the number of sets/tackles. But look at the difference in metres made by Saints. 

[usain bolt]

13 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

When ever does a player say no in those circumstances ?

When he knows he can't reach, like when Coote had a similar situation but turned it down. Sometimes the player needs to take a responsibility, can I reach, at least put it dead or not. Not just go through with it. I'm sure Hardaker must have known he could reach, having practiced many times, but failed either with technique or pressure, that he didn't strike the ball accordingly. If he nails it he's the hero, he didn't, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. The fact he didn't make dead with the goal was a killer, but the chance was there, and he must have been confident beforehand otherwise a kick to touch would have been the call I'm sure.