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

[FearTheVee]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

There are dropped balls and there is what happened in front of Fages. Is it really the case that no Saints fan can see that he should have stopped? It isn’t a surprise but it’s a shame if that’s the case. The idea that it was within the rules and so nothing else should be taken into account, and even, in some cases seemingly that he did the right thing, would be astonishing if it weren’t sadly predictable. 

The only people really astonished at this awful display of callousness appear to be Wigan fans, which I find instructive.

It’s really bad fortune for Hull and for Griffin but that’s really all there is to it.  This idea that there’s a widely acknowledged code of conduct that you don’t pick up balls dropped by players who pick up a knock (in this case a bad one) is about as fanciful as the idea that players wouldn’t run at a player struggling with a knock on the field.

When injured players drop the ball forward it’s a knock on, backwards it’s play on and it has always been like that.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

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.

How is that even remotely close to the same thing? Why would it be the sporting thing to let them score? He failed to score. No one has been taken advantage of.

The sporting thing to do would be to stop play at that point and not take advantage of the player.

And before you try another false equivalence by talking about players getting injured in a tackle, that is completely different also as that is the risk of collision.

Being injured unopposed is not competition, and to take advantage of it is just poor. 

At no point have I said it was illegal.

[Spidey]

17 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

The only people really astonished at this awful display of callousness appear to be Wigan fans, which I find instructive.

It’s really bad fortune for Hull and for Griffin but that’s really all there is to it.  This idea that there’s a widely acknowledged code of conduct that you don’t pick up balls dropped by players who pick up a knock (in this case a bad one) is about as fanciful as the idea that players wouldn’t run at a player struggling with a knock on the field.

When injured players drop the ball forward it’s a knock on, backwards it’s play on and it has always been like that.

How dare you call me a Wigan fan. Reported

[FearTheVee]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How is that even remotely close to the same thing? Why would it be the sporting thing to let them score? He failed to score. No one has been taken advantage of.

The sporting thing to do would be to stop play at that point and not take advantage of the player.

And before you try another false equivalence by talking about players getting injured in a tackle, that is completely different also as that is the risk of collision.

Being injured unopposed is not competition, and to take advantage of it is just poor. 

At no point have I said it was illegal.

My only point is that both result in a team being four points worse off than they would have been absent some very bad luck, and both have nothing to do with the referee.

And getting injured in a rugby collision is no different to getting injured running - they’re both examples of bad luck that have nothing to do with a referee or his interpretation of misconduct rules about sportsmanship (which is what I was referring to).

[FearTheVee]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

How dare you call me a Wigan fan. Reported

[JonM]

19 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

The only people really astonished at this awful display of callousness appear to be Wigan fans, which I find instructive.

I was supporting Saints as a neutral, turned the match off when this incident happened. Just a really poor, unsporting bit of play, not what I want to watch as a game. Presumably you'd be OK with a one-on-one ball steal on an injured player too.

[FearTheVee]

8 minutes ago, JonM said:

I was supporting Saints as a neutral, turned the match off when this incident happened. Just a really poor, unsporting bit of play, not what I want to watch as a game. Presumably you'd be OK with a one-on-one ball steal on an injured player too.

Honestly interested in a few things given you feel strongly on this, which I respect.

Had a Hull player been next to Griffin, picked up the ball he lost backwards and gone the length - would that be unsporting or just play on?

If a Saints player had picked it up and taken a tackle - would that be unsporting given we’ve taken advantage of an injury by picking a ball up? Or is only points that made it unsporting?

What is the list of sanctioned injuries for dropping the ball without jeopardy and how should the ref assess them?

[JohnM]

1 minute ago, FearTheVee said:

Had a Hull player been next to Griffin, picked up the ball he lost backwards and gone the length - would that be unsporting or just play on?

We will never know, since it hasn't happened, unlike the actual  incident that is being discussed.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, Josef K said:

Why what has Koukash been saying about his new Liverpooool side now ?. 

Oh no! Koukash is subbing Saints? He'd better get a receipt.

[redjonn]

Now whilst y example is not like scoring a try it still asks the ref to take account of injury...

In one of the sky games few weeks ago a player was clearly injured (think it was a Leeds player) but proceeded to play the ball with his leg injury impacting him... he misplayed the PTB... the ref penalised him for that PTB.

Now the commentators will suggesting that his injury impacted him and the ref was harsh to giving a penalty.

If in that example we think the ref should follow the law then in the Farges example he should as well.

I would have preferred if Farges had not played on but I can understand that his natural reaction in that spit second was the play on as per the rules and taught from an early age to play to the whistle.

[FearTheVee]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

Now whilst y example is not like scoring a try it still asks the ref to take account of injury...

In one of the sky games few weeks ago a player was clearly injured (think it was a Leeds player) but proceeded to play the ball with his leg injury impacting him... he misplayed the PTB... the ref penalised him for that PTB.

Now the commentators will suggesting that his injury impacted him and the ref was harsh to giving a penalty.

If in that example we think the ref should follow the law then in the Farges example he should as well.

I would have preferred if Farges had not played on but I can understand that his natural reaction in that spit second was the play on as per the rules and taught from an early age to play to the whistle.

how should the players and ref assess dropped balls?

Should the opposing team pick up the ball then everyone stand still and wait to see whether the player is badly hurt or just hurt or just pretending to be hurt, then decide how to carry on?

Or perhaps we just accept that sometimes injured players might drop the ball in unfortunate situations just like injured players might miss a tackle.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

8 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Now whilst y example is not like scoring a try it still asks the ref to take account of injury...

In one of the sky games few weeks ago a player was clearly injured (think it was a Leeds player) but proceeded to play the ball with his leg injury impacting him... he misplayed the PTB... the ref penalised him for that PTB.

Now the commentators will suggesting that his injury impacted him and the ref was harsh to giving a penalty.

If in that example we think the ref should follow the law then in the Farges example he should as well.

I would have preferred if Farges had not played on but I can understand that his natural reaction in that spit second was the play on as per the rules and taught from an early age to play to the whistle.

The player in question has chosen to play on in that situation. He had every right to stay down.

Again, no where near the same situation.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

9 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

how should the players and ref assess dropped balls?

Should the opposing team pick up the ball then everyone stand still and wait to see whether the player is badly hurt or just hurt or just pretending to be hurt, then decide how to carry on?

Or perhaps we just accept that sometimes injured players might drop the ball in unfortunate situations just like injured players might miss a tackle.

Perhaps when a player throws the ball away when no one is touching him then crumples to the floor in obvious excruciating agony with no advantage to be gained from doing so?...

I have no objection to the player "killing the play" so to speak by picking the ball up. But to run and score are when what had happened was so obvious (and that's without the celebrating like he'd achieved some sort of masterful piece of skill) is poor.

What possibly advantage is there for a player to gain here?

[FearTheVee]

10 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Perhaps when a player throws the ball away when no one is touching him then crumples to the floor in obvious excruciating agony with no advantage to be gained from doing so?...

I have no objection to the player "killing the play" so to speak by picking the ball up. But to run and score are when what had happened was so obvious (and that's without the celebrating like he'd achieved some sort of masterful piece of skill) is poor.

What possibly advantage is there for a player to gain here?

I honestly do get where you’re coming from but you’re saying you don’t mind a player taking advantage of the injury (taking possession) but not if they have a chance to score. This is the problem with saying anything other than play on - it’s just enormously subjective.

what if Griffin got injured behind his own line - would it be ok to fall on the ball? If so why?  Would the player have to pick it up and run back behind the try lone, take a tackle and try to score on the next set?

What if there is five minutes left in a match and a full back knows there is a bomb coming? Maybe you hobble a little when it goes up then jump on the floor if you drop it?

how much time is enough time for a player to assess whether the player dropping the ball is injured?

Should you not kick in the direction of injured players? Should you not run in the direction of injured players? In what circumstances should injury stop play from a sporting point of view (we know the rules currently and they aren’t leg injuries).

The only sensible outcome is to chalk unfortunate incidents like this down to what they are - bad luck.

[boris74]

Really unfortunate for Hull. No laws were broken and I have no issue with Fages playing to the whistle but something just feels wrong.

Credit to Amor and Makinson for appealing to the ref to stop play the second it was obvious that Griffin had a very serious injury - and it was obvious that Griffin was seriously in trouble. Something about when opposition players show concern and gesture for help to injured opponents - a touch of class.

I suspect the ref had a niggling doubt about the call as he had absolutely no reason to go to the video ref to clarify the try as it was a very clear cut grounding. 

As for people claiming Griffin should have kept hold of the ball - you are seriously missing the point and have obviously never had your achilles explode on you!

[Old Frightful]

There's always one...

[Padge]

3 hours ago, daz39 said:

No it couldn't....i'm presuming you must be very high up within the game to be able to call him an idiot and overule his knowledge, if not kindly refrain from abusing one of our match officials online - i'm sure that will also come under misconduct.

You've also contradicted yourself with regards to the bottom bit, the bit where you've said yourself it's covered by a law, playing on is not and never will be misconduct or against any law within the game.

 

 

You have told us that a senior official in the game doesn't know the laws of the game, you said he told you that no such law exists (in the true spirit of the game), I can only conclude he is an idiot as that clause in the laws is clearly there and easy for anyone to find.

Not playing in the true spirit of the games is misconduct, the referee could have pulled Fage back and said that it wasn't on. As I have already explained that would have the unfortunate affect of him having to award a penalty.

After the Saints team realised what had happened, the sporting thing to have done would have been t gift a try to Hull.

You are arguing about something people aren't arguing about.

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

There's always one...

That Twitter account has already been deleted. But you can Google it and see the details 

[daz39]

50 minutes ago, Padge said:

You have told us that a senior official in the game doesn't know the laws of the game, you said he told you that no such law exists (in the true spirit of the game), I can only conclude he is an idiot as that clause in the laws is clearly there and easy for anyone to find.

Not playing in the true spirit of the games is misconduct, the referee could have pulled Fage back and said that it wasn't on. As I have already explained that would have the unfortunate affect of him having to award a penalty.

After the Saints team realised what had happened, the sporting thing to have done would have been t gift a try to Hull.

You are arguing about something people aren't arguing about.

Jeez, you're hard work, he said there is no law against playing on when a player is injured which there isn't and as i've said umpteen times, playing on is not misconduct nor is it against the spirit of the game, on this occasion it would be nothing more than bad sportmanship and bad luck, you cannot just make a ruling up for a one off incident, likewise you cannot discipline a player for playing to the rules which is what you are suggesting should happen as per applying a misconduct charge against Fages.

 

[daz39]

..

[Padge]

16 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Jeez, you're hard work, he said there is no law against playing on when a player is injured which there isn't and as i've said umpteen times, playing on is not misconduct nor is it against the spirit of the game, on this occasion it would be nothing more than bad sportmanship and bad luck, you cannot just make a ruling up for a one off incident, likewise you cannot discipline a player for playing to the rules which is what you are suggesting should happen as per applying a misconduct charge against Fages.

 

No, I pointed out that there is a law that exists that if the referee chose to use he could, it is a catch all law. The result of applying the law would have been a penalty to Hull, this would have been, as I said earlier and more than once, unfair also, but less so than the result we finished up with.

The correct thing to have happened would be for Saints having realised what had occurred was to gift Hull a try, it would have been the sporting thing to do and the moral thing to do.

Even some Saints supporters on here have stated they are not comfortable with it.

[Dunbar]

31 minutes ago, Padge said:

No, I pointed out that there is a law that exists that if the referee chose to use he could, it is a catch all law. The result of applying the law would have been a penalty to Hull, this would have been, as I said earlier and more than once, unfair also, but less so than the result we finished up with.

I feel like we are going round circles somewhat but you cannot just declare this as if it is true.

Some people have said what Fages did was unfair but some have said it was unlucky but fair game (including the coach of Hull).

Penalising Fages would have been more unfair because he didn't actually do anything to penalise.  He picked up a loose ball and played on.  You can say as many times as you like that it wasn't in the spirit of the game but that isn't true... how can playing as dictated by the laws of the game not be in the spirit of the game.

[Old Frightful]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

That Twitter account has already been deleted. But you can Google it and see the details 

Rather hilariously, someone posted on fb or twitter that his phone had been turned off.

He's obviously a complete pr*ck and plenty of folk have been wanting to get in touch...

[daz39]

33 minutes ago, Padge said:

No, I pointed out that there is a law that exists that if the referee chose to use he could, it is a catch all law. The result of applying the law would have been a penalty to Hull, this would have been, as I said earlier and more than once, unfair also, but less so than the result we finished up with.

The correct thing to have happened would be for Saints having realised what had occurred was to gift Hull a try, it would have been the sporting thing to do and the moral thing to do.

Even some Saints supporters on here have stated they are not comfortable with it.

You cannot penalise players for not doing anything against the rules, how can scoring a legitimate try be classed as misconduct, how hard is it?

As for the correct thing, it was already done, the referee said play on as a loose ball was picked up.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

what if Griffin got injured behind his own line - would it be ok to fall on the ball? If so why?  Would the player have to pick it up and run back behind the try lone, take a tackle and try to score on the next set?

In the incredibly unlikely scenario, if a player knows the other is injured behind their goal line unopposed and somehow doesn't manage to throw the ball over the dead ball line, the sporting thing to do would be to kick it dead (like in football). I said about "killing the play", not taking possession. 

3 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

What if there is five minutes left in a match and a full back knows there is a bomb coming? Maybe you hobble a little when it goes up then jump on the floor if you drop it?

Again, completely different scenario. I'm not sure if you don't understand the scenario or you're being purposely obtuse. In that situation, the player never had possession. If he's made an attempt to catch the ball, he's not seriously injured. If he knocks on in the attempt, he never had possession. So no, absolutely nothing at all alike.

3 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

how much time is enough time for a player to assess whether the player dropping the ball is injured?

If in the very unlikely scenario that a player couldn't tell an unopposed player has crumpled to the floor with no players touching him and dropped the ball in the process, and the opposing team scores, then the spring thing to do would be to even it out.

We see it in other sports.

3 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

Should you not kick in the direction of injured players? Should you not run in the direction of injured players? In what circumstances should injury stop play from a sporting point of view (we know the rules currently and they aren’t leg injuries).

The changing of possession is the difference. If a player has a knock and chooses to continue, that's their choice. It's for the coaching team to get them off. If the team don't have possession, then that is a situation that can be taken advantage of in terms of injury. But I'll repeat, there is no way the situation that occurred yesterday could gain an advantage. Why would an attacking player purposely give up possession? You've tried and failed to come up with similar situations.