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

[daz39]

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

It was within the refs power to disallow the try, some have claimed it was not. The ref could have disallowed it, but his problem then would have been he would have to give Hull a penalty, we would then be having an argument about why the ref had given a penalty for an unfortunate accident, I would sooner we were having that argument than one about really bad sportsmanship.

On what grounds could he have disallowed it? there is no rule or law for that scenario.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Padge said:

It was within the refs power to disallow the try, some have claimed it was not. The ref could have disallowed it, but his problem then would have been he would have to give Hull a penalty, we would then be having an argument about why the ref had given a penalty for an unfortunate accident, I would sooner we were having that argument than one about really bad sportsmanship.

Yes, I agree with you on this.  The law that says a player is behaving contrary to the true spirit of the game is extremely broad and I think you could argue that Fages picking the ball up after Griffin dropped it falls into this category.

I think you could argue it, but I think that would be wrong.  Players have been collecting loose balls and playing on for as long as I have been watching the game.  Sometimes after a player has lost it due to injury.  The idea that a player picking up a loose ball after it is lost by an injured player is misconduct is simply wrong.

Whether we like the idea of Saints scoring after Griffin released the ball or not, a penalty for Hull for Fages picking the ball up was not the answer.

In other words, the referee could only apply the laws of the game as they are written (and in their spirit) and in this case I think the ref did the only thing he could and allow Fages to pick up a loose ball.  Whether that was an unsporting act or not.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

On Connor, him moving into the attacking line was what kicked Hull on I thought, made a huge difference over when he was stood out behind it as a full back. Mainly because Reynolds was doing nothing at all in the attack, so Connor taking a bigger part was great to see. But those 3 minutes summed him perfectly.  Great 40/20, gobbled off at a Saints player for no reason then threw a stupid pass. He's such a brilliant player but his head is his biggest problem.

His character needs to change but not too much imo.  The pass would’ve been ok normally but Hull were pressing and he took the chance.  He was marginally out of time in his decision making and Grace gambled on the intercept.  C’est la vie, but I would change him trying those at all.

[Padge]

31 minutes ago, daz39 said:

On what grounds could he have disallowed it? there is no rule or law for that scenario.

Yes there is, read the thread.

[Padge]

27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I agree with you on this.  The law that says a player is behaving contrary to the true spirit of the game is extremely broad and I think you could argue that Fages picking the ball up after Griffin dropped it falls into this category.

I think you could argue it, but I think that would be wrong.  Players have been collecting loose balls and playing on for as long as I have been watching the game.  Sometimes after a player has lost it due to injury.  The idea that a player picking up a loose ball after it is lost by an injured player is misconduct is simply wrong.

Whether we like the idea of Saints scoring after Griffin released the ball or not, a penalty for Hull for Fages picking the ball up was not the answer.

In other words, the referee could only apply the laws of the game as they are written (and in their spirit) and in this case I think the ref did the only thing he could and allow Fages to pick up a loose ball.  Whether that was an unsporting act or not.

Hence people have been saying that the true sporting thing that should have happened is that Saints gifted Hull a try from the kick off.

It would also have been headline news for a couple of days with people talking about how sporting rugby league is.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Padge said:

Hence people have been saying that the true sporting thing that should have happened is that Saints gifted Hull a try from the kick off.

It would also have been headline news for a couple of days with people talking about how sporting rugby league is.

Yes, I know. But that isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about you advocating that the referee should have disallowed the try.

[daz39]

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

Yes there is, read the thread.

According to a top level official I know personally... 

"The balls in play and not dead until either a Hull Fc player regathers following the knock on or tackle is complete. It's unfortunate but the laws of the game say it's a try. There's no such law as 'spirit of...' only ungentlemanly conduct of which this wouldn't be the case as there's been no breach in the law its just a one in a million chance unfortunately."

I'm presuming you have evidence to the contrary then? 

[Spidey]

Laws or not the referee can stop play whenever he wants. As soon as Griffin threw the ball away he could have blown the whistle and used his discretion on the restart afterwards. 

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Laws or not the referee can stop play whenever he wants. As soon as Griffin threw the ball away he could have blown the whistle and used his discretion on the restart afterwards. 

That is true.  But I have looked at the video on the BBC website and there is just about 1 second between Griffin dropping the ball and Fages picking it up (I timed it).  From that point, Saints had possession and the natural instinct is to play on as there has been no infringement.  Then, when it was sent to the video ref, despite it being arguably a poor piece of sportsmanship from Fages, there was no logical reason to overturn the try.

I just don't think it is appropriate to put any of this at the feet of the officials.

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

That is true.  But I have looked at the video on the BBC website and there is just about 1 second between Griffin dropping the ball and Fages picking it up (I timed it).  From that point, Saints had possession and the natural instinct is to play on as there has been no infringement.  Then, when it was sent to the video ref, despite it being arguably a poor piece of sportsmanship from Fages, there was no logical reason to overturn the try.

I just don't think it is appropriate to put any of this at the feet of the officials.

I was wondering if that's why he went to the video ref at the time, as there was blatantly nothing wrong with the finish. Maybe hoping VR could find a reason to disallow it 

[Padge]

41 minutes ago, daz39 said:

According to a top level official I know personally... 

"The balls in play and not dead until either a Hull Fc player regathers following the knock on or tackle is complete. It's unfortunate but the laws of the game say it's a try. There's no such law as 'spirit of...' only ungentlemanly conduct of which this wouldn't be the case as there's been no breach in the law its just a one in a million chance unfortunately."

I'm presuming you have evidence to the contrary then? 

Yes, read the laws of the game, especially the chapter on misconduct, your "top level official" doesn't know what he is talking about. I'll tell you what I'll post it again for your delight..

MISCONDUCT

Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(i) behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game.

[FearTheVee]

6 minutes ago, Padge said:

Yes, read the laws of the game, especially the chapter on misconduct, your "top level official" doesn't know what he is talking about. I'll tell you what I'll post it again for your delight..

MISCONDUCT

Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(i) behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game.

Do you honestly believe this nonsense?

I can imagine the disciplinary hearing - what was the misconduct? Well, he err, played to the whistle.

[daz39]

22 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Laws or not the referee can stop play whenever he wants. As soon as Griffin threw the ball away he could have blown the whistle and used his discretion on the restart afterwards. 

But he had no reason to, are we now going to say that ref's can randomly stop a game when the ball is still live? you can't do that as that is unfair to the team with the advantage.

[Spidey]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That is true.  But I have looked at the video on the BBC website and there is just about 1 second between Griffin dropping the ball and Fages picking it up (I timed it).  From that point, Saints had possession and the natural instinct is to play on as there has been no infringement.  Then, when it was sent to the video ref, despite it being arguably a poor piece of sportsmanship from Fages, there was no logical reason to overturn the try.

I just don't think it is appropriate to put any of this at the feet of the officials.

They call all other decisions in that time frame. Plus there was the lead up with Griffin hobbling before he went to ground and gave up possession.

Earlier in the season I witnessed an obviously injured player try and get up and play the ball for Widnes against Newcastle and knock on. The ref gave it as a knock on.

Modern referees need a bit more nouse and not be robotic 

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, daz39 said:

But he had no reason to, are we now going to say that ref's can randomly stop a game when the ball is still live? you can't do that as that is unfair to the team with the advantage.

There was a bloke with a snapped Achilles in amongst the play. Of course he can stop play. Nothing random about it

Plus advantage is at the discretion of the referee. Saints getting possession from a controlled restart would still be an advantage

[FearTheVee]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

They call all other decisions in that time frame. Plus there was the lead up with Griffin hobbling before he went to ground and gave up possession.

Earlier in the season I witnessed an obviously injured player try and get up and play the ball for Widnes against Newcastle and knock on. The ref gave it as a knock on.

Modern referees need a bit more nouse and not be robotic 

And so he should give it as a knock on, because that’s what it is.

Do we want to task refs with working out who is in sufficient discomfort to be allowed to knock on? Talk about asking for subjective farce.

The situation is what it has always been - injured players try to hold the ball and sometimes they don’t manage it. It is unfortunate but so is being in discomfort in a defensive line and missing a tackle. 

[Spidey]

Just now, FearTheVee said:

And so he should give it as a knock on, because that’s what it is.

Do we want to task refs with working out who is in sufficient discomfort to be allowed to knock on? Talk about asking for subjective farce.

We don’t seem to mind referees using discretion when to call out penalties for offside, they just shout at them most of the time

[daz39]

6 minutes ago, Padge said:

Yes, read the laws of the game, especially the chapter on misconduct, your "top level official" doesn't know what he is talking about. I'll tell you what I'll post it again for your delight..

MISCONDUCT

Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(i) behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game.

Well the RFL and referee's associations seem to think he does as he keeps getting paid to officiate at appointments at the top level of the game but because you say he doesn't know what he's talking about he must be wrong then, i'll inform him he's in the wrong job when i chat to him later shall i?

As you have kindly copied and pasted from the RFL's website i will again quote my personal reference when he stated..."There's no such law as 'spirit of...' only ungentlemanly conduct of which this wouldn't be the case as there's been no breach in the law its just a one in a million chance unfortunately."

You seem to be missing the whole point that there has been NO LAW broken, therefore there is NOTHING to penalise and certainly no misconduct, scoring a try while the ball is live is in no way whatsoever misconduct.

[FearTheVee]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

We don’t seem to mind referees using discretion when to call out penalties for offside, they just shout at them most of the time

Just when you thought we had reached peak false equivalence . . . .

[daz39]

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That is true.  But I have looked at the video on the BBC website and there is just about 1 second between Griffin dropping the ball and Fages picking it up (I timed it).  From that point, Saints had possession and the natural instinct is to play on as there has been no infringement.  Then, when it was sent to the video ref, despite it being arguably a poor piece of sportsmanship from Fages, there was no logical reason to overturn the try.

I just don't think it is appropriate to put any of this at the feet of the officials.

I thought Mr Moore gave the try without reference to the VR? i could be wrong though.

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Just when you thought we had reached peak false equivalence . . . .

This argument is all about “rules are rules” I just highlighted that not all rules/laws are always black and white

[Spidey]

Just now, Spidey said:

This argument is all about “rules and rules” I just highlighted that not all rules/laws are always black and white

He went to VR to check grounding 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, daz39 said:

I thought Mr Moore gave the try without reference to the VR? i could be wrong though.

No, he went to the video ref.

[Chris22]

I can understand the arguments both ways on Fages' conduct. There are merits to both sides. Fages is employed to win rugby league matches, that's it. He acted in a way that furthered that and there's no room for sympathy. Fages would not have stopped if Griffin was injured as a result of a big hit, or if he was limping (some may even encourage players to run at the injured player).

On the other, a player was seriously injured (and I think that was clear, even in the moment) and he chose to take advantage of that rather than show concern for an opponent who was in considerable distress.

What I cannot understand are the arguments that a referee should disallow a try that is legal on the basis of compassion, sympathy or because a player was injured. If we start asking referees to apply 'common sense', then we might as well throw the laws in the bin. If a defender starts limping as an attacker runs at him, then should the refereee disallow that? We are in a minefield if you ask officials to play doctor and say how serious an injury is in a second.

[FearTheVee]

4 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I can understand the arguments both ways on Fages' conduct. There are merits to both sides. Fages is employed to win rugby league matches, that's it. He acted in a way that furthered that and there's no room for sympathy. Fages would not have stopped if Griffin was injured as a result of a big hit, or if he was limping (some may even encourage players to run at the injured player).

On the other, a player was seriously injured (and I think that was clear, even in the moment) and he chose to take advantage of that rather than show concern for an opponent who was in considerable distress.

What I cannot understand are the arguments that a referee should disallow a try that is legal on the basis of compassion, sympathy or because a player was injured. If we start asking referees to apply 'common sense', then we might as well throw the laws in the bin. If a defender starts limping as an attacker runs at him, then should the refereee disallow that? We are in a minefield if you ask officials to play doctor and say how serious an injury is in a second.

If a player breaks the line, clear run for a try, pulls up a hamstring. Should the ref force the defending team to let the attacking team score because there was an unfortunate injury that cost them points because that is the sporting thing to do?

it’s a nonsense - you try to hold the ball when injured, sometimes you can’t. You try to make that tackle when you’re injured, sometimes you can’t. You try to finish that clean break when you’re injured, sometimes you can’t.

it’s just unfortunate. Anything about misconduct etc is bananas.