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

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

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.

I'm happy to discuss the merits of the behaviour of the players in these situations.  But what you are suggesting here places a ridiculous and unfair burden on the referees. 

[Hela Wigmen]

How many metres up a field does it have to be before it’s okay for a player to dive on a loose ball or does it only not count when it’s against your club?

[Padge]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm happy to discuss the merits of the behaviour of the players in these situations.  But what you are suggesting here places a ridiculous and unfair burden on the referees. 

It doesn't, they apply the laws all the time, just apply this one. It's not difficult.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Padge said:

It doesn't, they apply the laws all the time, just apply this one. It's not difficult.

Of course it's difficult. 

What if a player throws the ball away before the tackle because he is suffering from cramp? Should the ref disallow a try from the team collecting possession due to 'not in the spirit of the game'?

It would place an unfair burden on the ref's to determine the extent on an injury during live play. It would be completely unfair.

[Padge]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Of course it's difficult. 

What if a player throws the ball away before the tackle because he is suffering from cramp? Should the ref disallow a try from the team collecting possession due to 'not in the spirit of the game'?

It would place an unfair burden on the ref's to determine the extent on an injury during live play. It would be completely unfair.

Players do not give up possession lightly, it is not a tactic you can use to your advantage. Saints players were waving to the ref to stop play before Fage got to the ball.

The point is, and it seems difficult to get through to some of the numbskulls on here, is that Fage broke no rules, BUT, Saints should not have accepted the points in the circumstances and the way to resolve that would have been to gift a try to Hull. 

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Padge said:

Players do not give up possession lightly, it is not a tactic you can use to your advantage. Saints players were waving to the ref to stop play before Fage got to the ball.

The point is, and it seems difficult to get through to some of the numbskulls on here, is that Fage broke no rules, BUT, Saints should not have accepted the points in the circumstances and the way to resolve that would have been to gift a try to Hull. 

Shall we try an have an adult conversation without the name calling.

My point, which I think is valid, is that if the exact same circumstance had happened but Griffin was suffering with cramp rather than a serious achilles injury, and he threw the ball away before the tackle, should the ref have disallowed the try due to 'the spirit if the game'?

And let's not say that would be a ridiculous scenario, I have watched Rugby League for 35 years and not seen one like today.

If the ref should not disallow a try because the player suffering from cramp threw the ball away then you are advocating for the ref to decide the severity of the injury in live play... if you advocate that a ref should disallow the try then you are saying that all players can simple throw the ball away and stop the game.

Do you see that this is an intolerable burden to place on the referees?

[Old Frightful]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Do you see that this is an intolerable burden to place on the referees?

Had Griffin suddenly suffered a cramp spasm and the result was the same as today, but he received treatment and carried on, then fine, no problem.

But he threw the ball down, collapsed in agony, had assistance and concern from "some" Saints' players, and was eventually carried off the field.

After the try was scored, the referee could have called time off, seen the seriousness of the injury, discussed it with the VR and both captains, and then disallowed the try with a play the ball to Hull or a knock on with Saints possession.

I don't think that's an intolerable burden, I would say it's common sense and a decision few could argue with.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Old Frightful said:

Had Griffin suddenly suffered a cramp spasm and the result was the same as today, but he received treatment and carried on, then fine, no problem.

But he threw the ball down, collapsed in agony, had assistance and concern from "some" Saints' players, and was eventually carried off the field.

After the try was scored, the referee could have called time off, seen the seriousness of the injury, discussed it with the VR and both captains, and then disallowed the try with a play the ball to Hull or a knock on with Saints possession.

I don't think that's an intolerable burden, I would say it's common sense and a decision few could argue with.

As I have said several times, I would have been happy to have seen Saints stop the play... or even gift FC a try on the kick off. I would even have been proud of the sport for being so fair.

But you simply can't place that type of burden on the ref.  You cannot allow or disallow legal tries based on the severity of an injury... that is a massively subjective call with so many injuries in between cramp and an achilles rupture.

Should a try have been disallowed if Griffin had suffered a broken leg, or a ligament injury?

Our ref's have a difficult enough job at the moment without asking them to judge the severity of injuries and award tries based on them.

Just think of the can of worms you are suggesting we open up based on a once in a decade incident. 

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

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

The player ought to have kept hold of the ball, if he was on the floor any hand on him would have been tackle complete

[yipyee]

32 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Shall we try an have an adult conversation without the name calling.

My point, which I think is valid, is that if the exact same circumstance had happened but Griffin was suffering with cramp rather than a serious achilles injury, and he threw the ball away before the tackle, should the ref have disallowed the try due to 'the spirit if the game'?

And let's not say that would be a ridiculous scenario, I have watched Rugby League for 35 years and not seen one like today.

If the ref should not disallow a try because the player suffering from cramp threw the ball away then you are advocating for the ref to decide the severity of the injury in live play... if you advocate that a ref should disallow the try then you are saying that all players can simple throw the ball away and stop the game.

Do you see that this is an intolerable burden to place on the referees?

I think 'injuries' are creeping in when a defending team are tired... last thing we need is for players to pretend they are injured after each knock on.. (i am not saying griffin was faking)

[Padge]

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Shall we try an have an adult conversation without the name calling.

My point, which I think is valid, is that if the exact same circumstance had happened but Griffin was suffering with cramp rather than a serious achilles injury, and he threw the ball away before the tackle, should the ref have disallowed the try due to 'the spirit if the game'?

And let's not say that would be a ridiculous scenario, I have watched Rugby League for 35 years and not seen one like today.

If the ref should not disallow a try because the player suffering from cramp threw the ball away then you are advocating for the ref to decide the severity of the injury in live play... if you advocate that a ref should disallow the try then you are saying that all players can simple throw the ball away and stop the game.

Do you see that this is an intolerable burden to place on the referees?

A player suffering from cramp would not throw the ball away, he would hang on to it. A player suffering excruciating pain from a snapped Achilles may just think I don't care about the ball.

It was obvious to Saints players that he was in serious distress, it was obvious to anyone with an ounce of compassion that the advantage taken should have been given up.

 

[Old Frightful]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As I have said several times, I would have been happy to have seen Saints stop the play... or even gift FC a try on the kick off. I would even have been proud of the sport for being so fair.

But you simply can't place that type of burden on the ref.  You cannot allow or disallow legal tries based on the severity of an injury... that is a massively subjective call with so many injuries in between cramp and an achilles rupture.

Should a try have been disallowed if Griffin had suffered a broken leg, or a ligament injury?

Our ref's have a difficult enough job at the moment without asking them to judge the severity of injuries and award tries based on them.

Just think of the can of worms you are suggesting we open up based on a once in a decade incident. 

Sorry but I don't think it's a burden.

As you have already said, it was "a once in a decade incident".

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, yipyee said:

I think 'injuries' are creeping in when a defending team are tired... last thing we need is for players to pretend they are injured after each knock on.. (i am not saying griffin was faking)

Saints players signaled there was a problem, when that happens you know there is a serious problem.

[Old Frightful]

11 minutes ago, yipyee said:

The player ought to have kept hold of the ball, if he was on the floor any hand on him would have been tackle complete

That's easy to say if you've never suffered an injury like Griffin did today.

I can't imagine the pain he must have been in to throw the ball down with no regard for the consequences.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

A player suffering from cramp would not throw the ball away, he would hang on to it. A player suffering excruciating pain from a snapped Achilles may just think I don't care about the ball.

It was obvious to Saints players that he was in serious distress, it was obvious to anyone with an ounce of compassion that the advantage taken should have been given up.

 

Look, I am not arguing that Saints wouldn't have shown fantastic spirit and fair play if they had decided to stop the play.  I have already said I would have been proud if that as a fan of the sport.

But you can't ask the ref to rule out a legal try like this, it would be completely unfair to place such a burden on them.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

Sorry but I don't think it's a burden.

As you have already said, it was "a once in a decade incident".

Are you saying the ref should have brought the captains together and said he was was going to disallow a try which was within the laws of the game because it was against the spirit of the game?

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Look, I am not arguing that Saints wouldn't have shown fantastic spirit and fair play if they had decided to stop the play.  I have already said I would have been proud if that as a fan of the sport.

But you can't ask the ref to rule out a legal try like this, it would be completely unfair to place such a burden on them.

It is not a burden, it is applying a law, is every law a burden to the ref. They would never make a decision if they thought "ooh that law is too much of a burden to apply".

It is such a rare opportunity to apply the law that it it didn't cross the refs mind immediately, no doubt in the refs review it will come up.

It was wrong to allow it, there is a law to cover it, it was wrong for Saints to accept it without offering recompense to Hull on the next play.

 

[Old Frightful]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Are you saying the ref should have brought the captains together and said he was was going to disallow a try which was within the laws of the game because it was against the spirit of the game?

If, as has already been stated on this thread, such a law exists, then absolutely.

It would probably make national headlines and great publicity for our sport apart from doing, what most people on here seem to agree, would be the right thing.

[Padge]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Are you saying the ref should have brought the captains together and said he was was going to disallow a try which was within the laws of the game because it was against the spirit of the game?

Absolutely.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

If, as has already been stated on this thread, such a law exists, then absolutely.

It would probably make national headlines and great publicity for our sport apart from doing, what most people on here seem to agree, would be the right thing.

 

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

Absolutely.

I am going to bed now.

I will think through your assertion that the ref should have disallowed that try because it contravened the laws of the game because it was againt the spirit if the game and come back to you tomorrow.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I think it's absurd to think that applying this law would some how open up s can of worms where players would start throwing the ball randomly after the slightest injury. I mean really, what player would take that risk? What player would decide "I've got a little boo-boo, I could easily hold on to the ball but I'm going to chuck it and hold the injured part of me and expect the referee to stop play."?

The answer would be none. No player would take that risk if they had the wherewithal to just hold the ball. There is absolutely zero advantage to be gained by doing so, so they wouldn't do it.

The "knock on, feign injury" line doesn't work either. It would be clear as day and not to mention completely different to what happened today. I'd have accepted the referee stopping play and giving possession to Saints on the back of the incident, which would eliminate such a ridiculous tactic (this actually happened to us not long ago with Westerman dislocating his knee cap, dropping the ball whilst on the floor after the tackle to knock it back in place, but being given as a knock on).

[jacksy]

I don't have an issue with Griffin/Fages try we didnt lose the game because of it.

If that had been Eng/GB v Australia and we were in the same situation. I would of been screaming at our players to pick it up and score.

You play to the whistle.

[Niels]

19 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I think it's absurd to think that applying this law would some how open up s can of worms where players would start throwing the ball randomly after the slightest injury. I mean really, what player would take that risk? What player would decide "I've got a little boo-boo, I could easily hold on to the ball but I'm going to chuck it and hold the injured part of me and expect the referee to stop play."?

The answer would be none. No player would take that risk if they had the wherewithal to just hold the ball. There is absolutely zero advantage to be gained by doing so, so they wouldn't do it.

The "knock on, feign injury" line doesn't work either. It would be clear as day and not to mention completely different to what happened today. I'd have accepted the referee stopping play and giving possession to Saints on the back of the incident, which would eliminate such a ridiculous tactic (this actually happened to us not long ago with Westerman dislocating his knee cap, dropping the ball whilst on the floor after the tackle to knock it back in place, but being given as a knock on).

The can of worms would be deciding when would a player have to be sportsmanlike and stop?

What about if Alex Walmsley runs near the line and he sees a player he had contact with go down injured? Does he ask how he is instead of grounding the ball?

What about if a player thinks they have a bad injury due to pain and loses the ball but it turns out not to be serious? Would their team then have to let the opposition walk in a try?

It would be impossible to apply it seriously. Especially as it is a game where the whole object is to soften up and inflict physical stress on the opposition. Therefore it is incongruous to expect players to stop immediate and enquire about a player's health before continuing. 

Today was an accident. The Hull players and coach to their credit didn't have an issue with it afterwards.

I felt sorry for Josh Griffin when I saw him in pain but Theo did nothing wrong. It wasn't a life or death situation such as a head injury which needed immediate attention. Theo not continuing or Lachlan not kicking the goal would not have made any difference. 

Regarding the result, Hull had a great oppprtunity to win the game after the 40-20 when St Helens' were rattled. However they didn't take it. 

I remember Josh when he was on loan at Batley and I hope he has a swift recovery. I did feel sad seeing him in pain and I hope he is back soon. 

[voteronniegibbs]

Fages took advantage of Griffin's distress. Maybe if he'd had five more yards to run to get the ball and a couple more seconds to compute what was happening he may have stopped as a couple of his team mates appeared to do. Only he can answer that. Having watched it back I think that it was unsporting of him but once the ball was grounded the ref has to give it. After it you could see the frustration in the Hull team and saints pushed that to their advantage. Apart from that incident it was a great game, FC made saints have to keep scoring and the final score doesn't reflect how close it should have been.

[JohnM]

The incident really soured the whole game for me and from that point on, it was obvious that Saints would win, no matter what Hull threw at them, so went and did something more productive and enjoyable instead. Turned the game back on at half time and again full time and was astonished at the comments and attitude of the pundits, especially Wilkin. A shame really, as Saints have a few fair, decent and talented players in the team. Still, come Cup Final day, we'll all be Cas fans, won't we, if only for 2 hours.