Fri 16 Apr: SL: Hull Kingston Rovers v Huddersfield Giants KO 19:45 (Sky)

[Maximus Decimus]

11 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

No you are the one not making sense.

The game has been stood on its head in the last 12 months... because of mikey mouse rule changes.  And that's before we even get to abolishing scrums.

So don't go sneering that I don't care about rugby league, I've been watching it for 60 years.  So I know at least as much as you.  

The 6 again rule is a laughable and inconsistent, slide rule joke of a rule.  

It then again a lot of the jokery comes from Australia.  At least they still have scrums, but they've managed to invent a few new jokes this season.

So it was preferable when they used to march teams up the pitch based on massively inconsistent refereeing interpretations? 

I've watched little RL in the last few years but have watched a fair bit this season. I had exactly the opposite thought about the 6 again. The referee has too big an influence in the outcome of games, and I remember watching a particularly frustrating example where the ref was giving penalties for holding seemingly at random. 

At least with 6 again, the punishment isn't nearly as big as getting a full set half-way down the pitch. 

[Maximus Decimus]

12 hours ago, meast said:

Losing control doesn't mean it's a knock on, he lost control, it went backwards, he was facing his own line, he then touched down the loose ball, by the laws of the game that's fine.

I don't particularly agree with it but those are the laws.

Just like ball stripping 2 on 1 is illegal which rovers benefitted from.

I understand your position, but my initial reaction to that decision was that they wouldn't even have gone to the bunker in the NRL and nobody would have questioned if it technically bounced backwards or not and I think that's the correct way.

There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law which is about rewarding good ball control. In my opinion, he blatantly lost control over the line and we shouldn't be trying to go out of our way to find a way to give it. If it's all about the letter of the law, why don't we check every play the ball and defensive lines for minor infringements as well? 

It reminded me of a game I saw about 10 years ago between Barrow and Widnes. The playmaker tried to put a forward through with a short pass, but the forward couldn't take it and the ball flew about 10m forward before a player grounded it. They went to the VR who decided that the player had made such a hash of the catch that it had only hit his chest and not his arms and therefore it was play on (I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to chest it forward on purpose). It was a mind-boggling decision to basically reward bad play, give a decision that wouldn't have been given anywhere else on the pitch, and infuriate most of those watching. 

[Rupert Prince]

56 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

So it was preferable when they used to march teams up the pitch based on massively inconsistent refereeing interpretations? 

I've watched little RL in the last few years but have watched a fair bit this season. I had exactly the opposite thought about the 6 again. The referee has too big an influence in the outcome of games, and I remember watching a particularly frustrating example where the ref was giving penalties for holding seemingly at random. 

At least with 6 again, the punishment isn't nearly as big as getting a full set half-way down the pitch. 

There is nothing wrong with some wrestle in the ruck.  Time and again we see laying on which is ignored, but by some hairsbreadth choice by the referee he gives it.    At every tackle the defender lays on, not rolling away as the rule says. There is no consistency.  (It's the same case with tackling round the shoulder.)

Consistent fouling should be warned then penalised, and then sin binned. A blatant flop, a late laying on. should be penalised. Otherwise get on with it.  Get rid of the current strip rule.  Indeed, any strip rule, it's the defenders job to hold on. If he drops it for any reason ... It's his fault.  On top of which a 6 again might prevent a team from kicking a goal.

Why do I say this... because it's so easy to make yardage.  The gain line is 11 yards.  And the game is too quick.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

In RU maybe but not in RL. As long as the ball doesn't come into contact with another player or the ground then it isn't a knock on.

I know that’s technically correct, but in practice in our sport if you lose control forwards being able to bat it back just before it hits the ground is still called as a knock-on 99 times out of a hundred. The ball carrier has a responsibility to secure the ball. 
 

Either way, nobody can tell me Gaskell isn’t a cheat and the video ref isn’t a disgrace for ruling that Linnet try out. Unbelievable behaviour 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

 

Double post 

[Maximus Decimus]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

There is nothing wrong with some wrestle in the ruck.  Time and again we see laying on which is ignored, but by some hairsbreadth choice by the referee he gives it.    At every tackle the defender lays on, not rolling away as the rule says. There is no consistency.  (It's the same case with tackling round the shoulder.)

Consistent fouling should be warned then penalised, and then sin binned. A blatant flop, a late laying on. should be penalised. Otherwise get on with it.  Get rid of the current strip rule.  Indeed, any strip rule, it's the defenders job to hold on. If he drops it for any reason ... It's his fault.  On top of which a 6 again might prevent a team from kicking a goal.

Why do I say this... because it's so easy to make yardage.  The gain line is 11 yards.  And the game is too quick.

Inconsistent refereeing around the ruck wasn't a problem that came in with the advent of 6 again.

It has been a problem for years and I'd love to see a cleaner more consistent approach. Any of your solutions require this to happen but as its been an issue for at least a generation I don't see how you're suddenly going to magic up competent officials who apply the rules consistently across the board. 

However, 6 again is massively preferable to what we had before when a dodgy decision was rewarded by a team being marched up the field and a new set often then resulting in a gifted try. 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I know that’s technically correct, but in practice in our sport if you lose control forwards being able to bat it back just before it hits the ground is still called as a knock-on 99 times out of a hundred. The ball carrier has a responsibility to secure the ball. 
 

Either way, nobody can tell me Gaskell isn’t a cheat and the video ref isn’t a disgrace for ruling that Linnet try out. Unbelievable behaviour 

The problem with rules as time goes on, is that the original reason for the rule gets forgotten and it gets replaced by strict adherence the wording of the law.

Take football as an example. The penalty kick was brought in as a direct result of outrage when a player stopped a goal in a final by punching the ball out of the way. Move on 125 years, and penalties are awarded in completely non-threatening situations on the edge of the box when a player hasn't moved his arm out of the way quick enough. In a sport that averages less than 3 goals a game, this is an absurd punishment. 

Back to RL. I suspect the origin of the knock-on rule was to reward good ball security and punish losing control of the ball. After all, it isn't a foul. Any attempt to do so on purpose is a penalty.

The only reason I can see as to why this doesn't apply also to losing control backwards is because passes are allowed to go to ground, and as such a ball can be purposely hit backwards. Policing of whether it was on purpose or not would be too difficult.

However, IMO in a situation where the player has obviously lost control like last night and made no attempt to knock it back while fumbling, it should be presumed a knock on (like they seem to do in Australia). They shouldn't be trying to measure by millimetres whether it went in a forward direction or not.

If we had a rule whereby the benefit of the doubt goes against the player who loses control, I doubt there'd have been a single outraged Huddersfield fan last night had it not been given. However, had Hudds won, there would have been much outrage because the player messed up and was awarded a dodgy decision. 

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

However, IMO in a situation where the player has obviously lost control like last night and made no attempt to knock it back while fumbling, it should be presumed a knock on (like they seem to do in Australia). They shouldn't be trying to measure by millimetres whether it went in a forward direction or not.

If you’re fumbling, only you know if you intend to knock it backwards. Nobody else knows if they made no attempt. So still hard to judge 

[Maximus Decimus]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

If you’re fumbling, only you know if you intend to knock it backwards. Nobody else knows if they made no attempt. So still hard to judge 

That's where benefit of the doubt comes in. There was no ambiguity about last night, he lost control of the ball.

There are plenty of things that require judgement, such as whether a ball was played at on a kick through or not. Some examples are close and some aren't.

I actually suspect when it comes to general play, it would make refs jobs easier as they aren't focusing on whether it's technically gone forward or not but whether the player has lost control. 

[Spidey]

11 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

That's where benefit of the doubt comes in. There was no ambiguity about last night, he lost control of the ball.

There are plenty of things that require judgement, such as whether a ball was played at on a kick through or not. Some examples are close and some aren't.

I actually suspect when it comes to general play, it would make refs jobs easier as they aren't focusing on whether it's technically gone forward or not but whether the player has lost control. 

But what if you’re losing control of the ball but you position yourself to make sure it goes backward, isn’t that a level of control? All I’m saying whatever rules/guidance are in place it’s open to go either way. Unless every dropped ball/catch/pass to the floor is a knock on

[meast]

5 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I understand your position, but my initial reaction to that decision was that they wouldn't even have gone to the bunker in the NRL and nobody would have questioned if it technically bounced backwards or not and I think that's the correct way.

There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law which is about rewarding good ball control. In my opinion, he blatantly lost control over the line and we shouldn't be trying to go out of our way to find a way to give it. If it's all about the letter of the law, why don't we check every play the ball and defensive lines for minor infringements as well? 

It reminded me of a game I saw about 10 years ago between Barrow and Widnes. The playmaker tried to put a forward through with a short pass, but the forward couldn't take it and the ball flew about 10m forward before a player grounded it. They went to the VR who decided that the player had made such a hash of the catch that it had only hit his chest and not his arms and therefore it was play on (I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to chest it forward on purpose). It was a mind-boggling decision to basically reward bad play, give a decision that wouldn't have been given anywhere else on the pitch, and infuriate most of those watching. 

I totally get where you're coming from, but then, as fans, we often bemoan the lack of benefit given to the attacking side, something like that , to me, rewards the attacking side rather than a breached defence, I suspect if  a KR player had contested it then it could have been deemed as he's lost control and given the defence a chance to claim possession.

But I think the fact that he lost control but not possession is what swung it.

If every game was refereed to the letter of the law, there wouldn't be a game worth watching, although, in terms of players losing control over the tryline, it's very rare and so not often an issue.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

But what if you’re losing control of the ball but you position yourself to make sure it goes backward, isn’t that a level of control? All I’m saying whatever rules/guidance are in place it’s open to go either way. Unless every dropped ball/catch/pass to the floor is a knock on

I'm only really arguing for the system that is already in place in Aus. In my opinion, they wouldn't have even considered last night as a try and probably not even sent it up. 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, meast said:

I totally get where you're coming from, but then, as fans, we often bemoan the lack of benefit given to the attacking side, something like that , to me, rewards the attacking side rather than a breached defence, I suspect if  a KR player had contested it then it could have been deemed as he's lost control and given the defence a chance to claim possession.

But I think the fact that he lost control but not possession is what swung it.

If every game was refereed to the letter of the law, there wouldn't be a game worth watching, although, in terms of players losing control over the tryline, it's very rare and so not often an issue.

I agree that incidents like last night are relatively rare, ie that he's over the line and happens to be facing backwards etc.

However, the issue of knock-ons isn't as rare. We've all been in games where the crowd has cheered because a player has dropped the ball only for the ref to wave play on because it's supposedly gone backwards. We've also see regular incidents where a player loses possession backwards but the ref gives a knock-on. 

In my experience as a fan, even when I think the ref has got it wrong both ways, the latter is much less frustrating. There is an acceptance that it is the player's fault really. Had they not given the try last night, I doubt you'd have been too aggrieved and certainly less so than KR fans if they'd lost. 

I suggest that unless it has obviously gone backwards, the benefit of the doubt should be that it is a knock-on and we should be rewarding those sides that keep possession better, not those who happen to slightly drop it backwards rather than slightly drop it forwards. 

[Liverpool Rover]

The Rovers of last year would have lost that game so it was a great win. The right edge defence needs to improve and Litten did get away with that strip right at the end.

I watched the Ben Crooks try several times and I’m not convinced he pushed the winger over.

[meast]

18 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I agree that incidents like last night are relatively rare, ie that he's over the line and happens to be facing backwards etc.

However, the issue of knock-ons isn't as rare. We've all been in games where the crowd has cheered because a player has dropped the ball only for the ref to wave play on because it's supposedly gone backwards. We've also see regular incidents where a player loses possession backwards but the ref gives a knock-on. 

In my experience as a fan, even when I think the ref has got it wrong both ways, the latter is much less frustrating. There is an acceptance that it is the player's fault really. Had they not given the try last night, I doubt you'd have been too aggrieved and certainly less so than KR fans if they'd lost. 

I suggest that unless it has obviously gone backwards, the benefit of the doubt should be that it is a knock-on and we should be rewarding those sides that keep possession better, not those who happen to slightly drop it backwards rather than slightly drop it forwards. 

Agree with that.

And to be fair, with the other 2 no tries involving Gaskell I was quite relieved that we actually managed to make a game of it for 20 minutes.

Had Kendall awarded those tries then we would have probably been 30-4 down and on the end of a battering.

 

[Ullman]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

The Rovers of last year would have lost that game so it was a great win. The right edge defence needs to improve and Litten did get away with that strip right at the end.

I watched the Ben Crooks try several times and I’m not convinced he pushed the winger over.

Bit like the Linnett one for me. If we're talking about ruling tries out for contact that minimal then we're losing our way.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, meast said:

Agree with that.

And to be fair, with the other 2 no tries involving Gaskell I was quite relieved that we actually managed to make a game of it for 20 minutes.

Had Kendall awarded those tries then we would have probably been 30-4 down and on the end of a battering.

 

I didn't see the Gaskell incident and it doesn't feature on the highlights.

There was one other interesting incident I thought, which was the last minute strip which most people seem to think is clear cut. I'm not so sure. 

I know RL players are not known for their intellect, but the context of this makes it almost unbelievable. His team are 1 point up in the last minute, in front of the posts and he decides to try a very risky strip?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

 

Hull KR’s official account of the matter...