Sat 5 Jun: CCSF: Hull FC v St Helens KO 14:30 (TV)

[Padge]

59 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Let’s imagine that this was the Challenge Cup Final and there are just a few seconds left.  A player from the side that’s 2 points in front drops the ball close to his line because of injury. Does the other side do the gentlemanly thing and allow the game to be stopped and subsequently lose the game or do they take advantage of the situation and score a try that wins them the cup? Let’s have honest answers only please.

If my team won in those circumstances I would be disgusted.

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

In actual game play virtually every single player pro or amateur would’ve picked it up and scored. 

This is where a better referee would have known what was going on and stopped play

[Futtocks]

The St Helens players who were behind Fages may have seen that there was an injury, but Theo was very close, reacting in the moment and doing exactly what he would have done if it was a regular dropped ball. The St Helens players behind him had a longer look.

It all happened very quickly and the ball was probably touched down before Fages realised anything unusual was up.

But teams will target a limping or cramped player in open play and it is an accepted way of exploiting a opposition weakness. And, with diving and other simulation on the rise, imagine if you threw away a scoring chance in a CC tie, only to see the "injured" player get up right as rain.

Whether St Helens should have allowed Hull to get the points back is a much trickier question.

[Pigeon Lofter]

A few years ago I was chatting to one of my daughters boyfriends about League when he recounted watching the Wigan Saints Grand Final where Ben Flower battered a prone Hohaia while he was unable to defend himself, it had become locked in his memory and he offered it up as his first observation about RL. He (wrongly) thought that kind of behaviour was typical of League.

I'm pretty sure if he was watching the BBC today and observed  the Fages "try" that he would have thought that his opinion all those years ago wan't too far removed from the reality, that sportsmanship in RL is an arbitrary and occasional value not widely upheld. 

Just a thought how these events can leave a lasting impression on people. Looks bad for the sport when that kind of try is celebrated and the coach and captain refused to do the right thing afterwards.

[Padge]

13 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

In actual game play virtually every single player pro or amateur would’ve picked it up and scored. 

Probably.but it was what you do after that is important, Saints could have done the decent thing and given Hull a try. Farge reacted on an opportunity offered. As a team Saints had an opportunity to right a wrong.

The referee had the opportunity also to declare it as contrary to the spirit of the game and award Hull a penalty, that would have been the correct decision.

 

[Jinking Jimmy]

17 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

No one is arguing whether it was legal or not, it whether it is covered in the rules of the game it not.

They are arguing the sporting merit of playing on and scoring directly from a seriously injured player losing the ball, something they don't even do in football.

I get the argument that Fages may not have realised (although I don't believe it as it was blatantly obvious), to which case the sporting thing to do would have been to level up the scoring. You see this happen in football and I'd guess in other sports too. Positive headlines and a chance to show true sporting merit. Instead we're highlighting just how unsporting many of our players are, including those in the panel (Jon Wilkin being one, who ironically shortly after arguing about how ruthless the game is so it's fair game later starts crying about compassion for George Williams who wasn't allowed to play on for his side after saying he didn't want to be there).

I must admit that had St.Helens allowed Hull to score from the restart it would have been a tremendous sporting gesture.

[Padge]

Just now, Jinking Jimmy said:

I must admit that had St.Helens allowed Hull to score from the restart it would have been a tremendous sporting gesture.

It would have been the sports headline news for a couple of days.

[Pigeon Lofter]

Just now, Jinking Jimmy said:

I must admit that had St.Helens allowed Hull to score from the restart it would have been a tremendous sporting gesture.

Yes.

And the fact that they didn't speaks volumes about their decency as a club.

[Out on the full]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

Probably.but it was what you do after that is important, Saints could have done the decent thing and given Hull a try. Farge reacted on an opportunity offered. As a team Saints had an opportunity to write a wrong.

The referee had the opportunity also to declare it as contrary to the spirit of the game and award Hull a penalty, that would have been the correct decision.

 

You are assuming a wrong was done but it wasnt. Its not as if the injury was caused by a Saints player. Had it been then it could be argued that a wrong was there to be put right but he wasnt even tackled. What happened was very unfortunate and unfair but no wrong was done. Fages played to the whistle and as was pointed out by the commentary team if Saints had not picked up the ball or alternatively given Hull a try in return, what type of injury should this apply to? Where should the line be drawn? The ref had not blown the whistle, the ball was dropped so the ball was free to be picked up and the try was there to be scored.

[Jinking Jimmy]

3 minutes ago, Pigeon Lofter said:

Yes.

And the fact that they didn't speaks volumes about their decency as a club.

Would any other team in that situation have allowed an “equaliser”?

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Out on the full said:

You are assuming a wrong was done but it wasnt. Its not as if the injury was caused by a Saints player. Had it been then it could be argued that a wrong was there to be put right but he wasnt even tackled. What happened was very unfortunate and unfair but no wrong was done. Fages played to the whistle and as was pointed out by the commentary team if Saints had not picked up the ball or alternatively given Hull a try in return, what type of injury should this apply to? Where should the line be drawn? The ref had not blown the whistle, the ball was dropped so the ball was free to be picked up and the try was there to be scored.

What bit of sportsmanship do you not understand.

What bit of "against the spirit of the game" do you not understand.

This isn't a laws thing, it is a being decent thing.

[Exiled Wiganer]

6 minutes ago, Out on the full said:

You are assuming a wrong was done but it wasnt. Its not as if the injury was caused by a Saints player. Had it been then it could be argued that a wrong was there to be put right but he wasnt even tackled. What happened was very unfortunate and unfair but no wrong was done. Fages played to the whistle and as was pointed out by the commentary team if Saints had not picked up the ball or alternatively given Hull a try in return, what type of injury should this apply to? Where should the line be drawn? The ref had not blown the whistle, the ball was dropped so the ball was free to be picked up and the try was there to be scored.

He should have stopped. It happened directly in his line of vision. His reaction should have been “god that looks like a bad one”, and stopped. One of the TV angles illustrated it perfectly, he was the best placed person on the field, with time to react and choose what to do next. He will have seen players badly injured plenty of times. Indeed, when a player goes down with no one near him you know it’s a bad injury. If he had been blind sided, or had been involved in a tackle in which the ball had come free, then I would have no problem with it (though they should still have declined the kick of course - Coote did that in the certain knowledge that they had been gifted a try after a very bad injury). 

This goes to them as people, and the culture of the club for whom they play. I would be writing this regardless of which player I had seen act like that. Re watch it from the angle behind Fages and that tells you everything you need to know. As for the ridiculous what iffery, we don’t need to consider those incidents because we have enough evidence before our eyes. If a Wigan player had done that I would expect that the country’s pitch fork supplies would be fully depleted by now. 

[Futtocks]

39 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Would any other team in that situation have allowed an “equaliser”?

Yes, when is the last time that such a thing happened? I can't recall it myself.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

As I say, I would have praised Saints if that had happened. It could have gone either way and (as I have said previously) I have been swayed by the fact the ex-pro's were OK with it. They may not have called Fages all the names under the sun if they felt he was out of order but they would have made it known.

The ex-pros agreeing it was ok doesn't make it ok, it means the problem is even bigger.

There was no sporting merit in that try at all.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

It doesn’t seem to be Hull fans with the strongest views on this. I wonder why that is.

Wonder no more. Its because the ones with the strongest views are containing themselves, allowing the neutrals on here to express their revulsion. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

I must admit that had St.Helens allowed Hull to score from the restart it would have been a tremendous sporting gesture.

They had a great opportunity to show their class and instead twisted the knife.

It wasn't ruthless as Jon Wilkin said; it was classless.

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, Padge said:

Probably.but it was what you do after that is important, Saints could have done the decent thing and given Hull a try. Farge reacted on an opportunity offered. As a team Saints had an opportunity to right a wrong.

The referee had the opportunity also to declare it as contrary to the spirit of the game and award Hull a penalty, that would have been the correct decision.

If the referee saw the injury he ought to have blown the whistle before the try was scored.  

[Dunbar]

39 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The ex-pros agreeing it was ok doesn't make it ok, it means the problem is even bigger.

There was no sporting merit in that try at all.

As I have said a few times, I could go either way on this try from a sporting perspective. 

But, please tell me what the 'bigger' problem is here that you describe?

[Rupert Prince]

4 hours ago, Mark S said:

How long does it usually take for an Achilles to repair?

Possibly never?

[Padge]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As I have said a few times, I could go either way on this try from a sporting perspective. 

But, please tell me what the 'bigger' problem is here that you describe?

I think he is getting at that we are losing the sporting element to our game, sporting means being fair as opposed to ruthless. 

[Bod]

51 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Wonder no more. Its because the ones with the strongest views are containing themselves, allowing the neutrals on here to express their revulsion. 

Neutrals? We all know which team most of the complainers on here today support. Laughable for them to be preaching about morals in the game to others.

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Padge said:

I think he is getting at that we are losing the sporting element to our game, sporting means being fair as opposed to ruthless. 

I accept that. And as I have said several times on this thread, it is a very unique circumstance, unlike pretty much every serious injury I have ever seen on a Rugby pitch... as either a player or a spectator. 

If Griffin was injured and went to ground the game would have stopped, no doubt. 

I suspect it would even have been different if he lost the ball as he went to ground. 

But he didn't, he threw the ball away. This was unique and I think we have to consider the reaction from Fages unique as well.

Let me stress again, this is no critique of Griffin. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

10 minutes ago, Padge said:

I think he is getting at that we are losing the sporting element to our game, sporting means being fair as opposed to ruthless. 

This.

Those ex pros basically said they'd take advantage of a serious injury to score unopposed. Where's the class in that? Where's the sporting merit in that? 

[Rupert Prince]

1 minute ago, Padge said:

I think he is getting at that we are losing the sporting element to our game, sporting means being fair as opposed to ruthless. 

I've only seen one game so far on replay, but the scores show how easy it is to score tries.   The game has changed in more ways than one. 

[Old Frightful]

I know it's a different sport but I remember watching an England v West Indies cricket match years ago when an England batsman lofted a ball into the outfield. Clive Lloyd (told you it was years ago!) set off after it but pulled his hamstring while chasing the ball, which didn't make it to the boundary.

The English batsmen, on seeing Lloyd prone on the floor in considerable pain, stopped running between the wickets.I

It wouldn't have sat very well with me if Hull FC had scored a try in similar circumstances to Fages, but I imagine a very large percentage of players might have done the same, albeit with a much more muted celebration.

As one or two on here have already suggested, perhaps it would have been a perfect opportunity for the referee to implement a "not in the spirit of the game" rule and disallow the try.

Seeing as we often see players in our great game suffer very painful injuries, I hope the RFL consider advising all match officials to consider going down this route in any future incidents.