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

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

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.

Coaches face punishment for criticising the ref, no surprise Hodges accepted it.

How many times do I have to point out that the only thing Fage could be pulled up on was not playing to the spirit of the game, opposition players often call for play to be stopped when an opponent is injured and a couple of Saints players did seem to make that call.

What this is about is should Saints have accepted that they scored from what was a not very nice situation. Some of us with a moral compass think they should not have gained an advantage and the way for Saints to remedy that would be to gift a try.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, Old Frightful said:

There's always one...

That guy has had A LOT of negative feedback on his business page on Facebook and Twitter not because of this one classless comment, not to mention has had to turn his mobile phone off because of calls to it.

Perhaps he should think first before commenting.

[Old Frightful]

1 minute ago, daz39 said:

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.

You certainly seem to have decided that this is your crusade on this and fair play to you, as a fan of neither team, to give your input.

I don't think anyone is saying what Fages did was against the rules, but as you can see for how long this thread has gone on, a lot of people don't sit comfortably with it, including several Saints' players at the time.

The referee could have blown the whistle when he realised how badly Griffin was injured and the fact that he dropped the ball as a result of that, but he didn't, and I can't help but wonder if his reason for going to the VR was because he didn't have time to assess the situation and stop the play, and was hoping for input from the VR.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours 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?

If Saints players had stopped because of concern to the injured player, then yes it would have.

If he had managed to get the ball to a Hull player clearly though, I don't think players would have stopped to check him, and in very much doubt play would have gotten far it it was an unclean pass as they'd have had to dive on it.

 

 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

Coaches face punishment for criticising the ref, no surprise Hodges accepted it.

How many times do I have to point out that the only thing Fage could be pulled up on was not playing to the spirit of the game, opposition players often call for play to be stopped when an opponent is injured and a couple of Saints players did seem to make that call.

What this is about is should Saints have accepted that they scored from what was a not very nice situation. Some of us with a moral compass think they should not have gained an advantage and the way for Saints to remedy that would be to gift a try.

 

For goodness sake, this must be the 10th time we have had this conversation. 

What Saints should or could have done is completely different to what the ref can do. 

Yes, Saints could have killed the game immediately. Yes, they could have given FC a try from the kick off. I would have been happy with either.

But, once again, that is irrelevant to what the ref could do and he could not penalise Fages for not playing in the spirit of the game when he did what just about everyone has ever said... he played to the whistle and played to the laws of the game.

I have no idea why you keep bringing in the Saints players lack of sportsmanship into this as if the ref could somehow have magically rectified it.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I'm quite concerned about the lack of instinct in what would be the sporting thing to do within RL circles after this incident.

I guess it's easy to show concern for your fellow professional when play has stopped and you cannot take advantage of them, but when given the chance would step over them to score.

Where's the integrity here? I'll say it again: it's a sad day when football has more of it than rugby league.

 

[Old Frightful]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have no idea why you keep bringing in the Saints players lack of sportsmanship into this as if the ref could somehow have magically rectified it.

I've already said this but I think he could have and perhaps tried to, I feel that's why he went to the VR.

Had he brought the two captains together and said :

"I accept Fages picked the ball up cleanly and grounded it cleanly but I didn't have the time to see how badly injured Griffin was which was why he dropped the ball. I feel it was an unfair situation for Fages to gain such an advantage so I'm disallowing the try and restarting the game with..."

Had he done that, it would hopefully soon have been forgotten and we wouldn't be on to the 17th page of a match thread.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

For goodness sake, this must be the 10th time we have had this conversation. 

What Saints should or could have done is completely different to what the ref can do. 

Yes, Saints could have killed the game immediately. Yes, they could have given FC a try from the kick off. I would have been happy with either.

But, once again, that is irrelevant to what the ref could do and he could not penalise Fages for not playing in the spirit of the game when he did what just about everyone has ever said... he played to the whistle and played to the laws of the game.

Depends what people consider "the spirit of the game" I suppose.

Gaining possession and scoring unopposed directly at the expense of an injured player many would consider against the spirit of the game.

Others would say "play on". In those circumstances, I'd argue that lacks spirit completely.

 

Many have said they accept the try but it doesn't sit right. We have to accept it's happened. The question now is, if it doesn't sit right, should things be put in place to prevent this happening again (as rare as it is) so that it does sit right in future?

For many, sporting integrity is still important, and if the players can't show it when they have chance to take advantage, what can the sport do?

[Padge]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I'm quite concerned about the lack of instinct in what would be the sporting thing to do within RL circles after this incident.

I guess it's easy to show concern for your fellow professional when play has stopped and you cannot take advantage of them, but when given the chance would step over them to score.

Where's the integrity here? I'll say it again: it's a sad day when football has more of it than rugby league.

 

I agree 100% with you 100% here Wellsy, the game of rugby league has a reputation for being, hard, uncompromising but fair and known for its respect of referees and the players respect for each other. This incident shows the sport to be, as you quite rightly point out, less sporting than that bastion of the cheat, soccer.

I am really at a loss as to why people are arguing against that the fair thing for Saints to have done was gift a try to Hull. 

[Dunbar]

35 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

I've already said this but I think he could have and perhaps tried to, I feel that's why he went to the VR.

Had he brought the two captains together and said :

"I accept Fages picked the ball up cleanly and grounded it cleanly but I didn't have the time to see how badly injured Griffin was which was why he dropped the ball. I feel it was an unfair situation for Fages to gain such an advantage so I'm disallowing the try and restarting the game with..."

Had he done that, it would hopefully soon have been forgotten and we wouldn't be on to the 17th page of a match thread.

Do you think so? I reckon if he had ruled out a legal try because he thought it was unfair on one of the teams I reckon we would be on page 170 by now.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

https://youtu.be/fUrx1NWnkBE

 

Applause all round. Says it all.

What do you want to be remembered for here?

 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Depends what people consider "the spirit of the game" I suppose.

Gaining possession and scoring unopposed directly at the expense of an injured player many would consider against the spirit of the game.

Others would say "play on". In those circumstances, I'd argue that lacks spirit completely.

 

Many have said they accept the try but it doesn't sit right. We have to accept it's happened. The question now is, if it doesn't sit right, should things be put in place to prevent this happening again (as rare as it is) so that it does sit right in future?

For many, sporting integrity is still important, and if the players can't show it when they have chance to take advantage, what can the sport do?

I am not arguing that it is fair. I have said already that on reflection I would have preferred Saints not to have scored from the play. But my point has always been that unless the ref pulled up the game immediately he couldn't do anything else. 

He certainly couldn't penalise Fages... as you say some say it isn't in the spirit of the game and some say playing to the whistle is absolutely in the spirit of the game.

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

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.

It was a loose ball.  So far I have not seen it, but recorded.  But in fact as I understand, he threw the ball away.  This bit is what concerned me and is what is unfortunate.  He was clearly in no fit state if he did not simply drop the ball, but threw it away. 

It's a tragic incident, very unappetizing, very unfortunate.  Hindsight is all very easy, but I think a compensating try should gave gone to Hull.  But no rules were broken, no precident.  But after a minutes thought having considered the incident, a compensating try could have been agreed between the teams.

[Man of Kent]

Fages did nothing wrong. Maybe Griffin shouldn’t have dropped the ball in the first place? 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It was a loose ball.  So far I have not seen it, but recorded.  But in fact as I understand, he threw the ball away.  This bit is what concerned me and is what is unfortunate.  He was clearly in no fit state if he did not simply drop the ball, but threw it away. 

It's a tragic incident, very unappetizing, very unfortunate.  Hindsight is all very easy, but I think a compensating try should gave gone to Hull.  But no rules were broken, no precident.  But after a minutes thought having considered the incident, a compensating try could have been agreed between the teams.

Yes, I have also said that would have been a great gesture.

The point I am making here though is that what the teams could have done is independent to what the ref can do.

[Padge]

39 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

https://youtu.be/fUrx1NWnkBE

 

Applause all round. Says it all.

What do you want to be remembered for here?

 

This is exactly what we are talking about, this is in the spirit of sport.

We look morally bankrupt in comparison.

[daz39]

48 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

I've already said this but I think he could have and perhaps tried to, I feel that's why he went to the VR.

Had he brought the two captains together and said :

"I accept Fages picked the ball up cleanly and grounded it cleanly but I didn't have the time to see how badly injured Griffin was which was why he dropped the ball. I feel it was an unfair situation for Fages to gain such an advantage so I'm disallowing the try and restarting the game with..."

Had he done that, it would hopefully soon have been forgotten and we wouldn't be on to the 17th page of a match thread.

But that scenario is penalising saints who had done nothing wrong at all and had every right to play on and score a try, why should they be denied a perfect legitimate try? It's not Saints' fault that Griffin got injured, he wasn't injured through foul play, it was, for the millionth time bad luck, painful and upsetting for Griffin maybe but bad luck all the same, we can't be changing the rules and laws to accomodate a very, very rare situation.

Players get injured in this sport, teams have to adjust and re-arrange because of this all the time, we can't change rules everytime a suffers bad luck.

[yipyee]

21 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

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.

I have ruptured my achilles tendon, I fell to the floor and the defender touched me to complete the tackle, it was crazy for him to limp 5 steps then through the ball down

[Pigeon Lofter]

10 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Fages did nothing wrong. Maybe Griffin shouldn’t have dropped the ball in the first place? 

The guy was having a medical emergency ffs.

The problem is how St Helens as a team sought to profit from an accident on the field and take advantage of the spontaneous collapse of an opposition player, to score a try that was ill-deserved and would not have happened under anything resembling normal circumstances.

Would be interested to hear if any St Helens players or officials even discussed the morality of playing on regardless and not even questioning whether Hull should have been gifted a free run of play to cancel out the aberration.

[Old Frightful]

1 minute ago, daz39 said:

But that scenario is penalising saints who had done nothing wrong at all and had every right to play on and score a try, why should they be denied a perfect legitimate try? It's not Saints' fault that Griffin got injured, he wasn't injured through foul play, it was, for the millionth time bad luck, painful and upsetting for Griffin maybe but bad luck all the same, we can't be changing the rules and laws to accomodate a very, very rare situation.

Players get injured in this sport, teams have to adjust and re-arrange because of this all the time, we can't change rules everytime a suffers bad luck.

Before we end up having to agree to disagree, why do you think some Saints' players were more concerned with Griffin's welfare than with Fages scoring the try?

As you've said, it was a "very, very rare situation", and such situations could call for very, very rare decisions for the good of the game.

[daz39]

I do agree though that had Saints allowed an unopposed score it would have made it a bit more comfortable, though not sure if that was even considered at the time by the officials or saints, i can't remember too many Hull players and coaching staff kicking up that much of a fuss so maybe they just accepted it as bad luck too.

[Pigeon Lofter]

22 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Fages did nothing wrong. Maybe Griffin shouldn’t have dropped the ball in the first place? 

Would you be saying exactly the same thing if Griffin had a heart attack?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

17 minutes ago, daz39 said:

But that scenario is penalising saints who had done nothing wrong at all and had every right to play on and score a try, why should they be denied a perfect legitimate try? It's not Saints' fault that Griffin got injured, he wasn't injured through foul play, it was, for the millionth time bad luck, painful and upsetting for Griffin maybe but bad luck all the same, we can't be changing the rules and laws to accomodate a very, very rare situation.

Players get injured in this sport, teams have to adjust and re-arrange because of this all the time, we can't change rules everytime a suffers bad luck.

Why can't we? There are laws in the game that talk about the ball hitting a bike that's been left in the field of play by accident or if a dog runs on to the pitch.

Players do get injured in sport, usually in collision which is part of the game and part of the risk of making a challenge (that is the sport). A player running unopposed and snapping a body part in the process then losing the ball isn't the sport. They're not comparible

[Wellsy4HullFC]

36 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Fages did nothing wrong. Maybe Griffin shouldn’t have dropped the ball in the first place? 

If we're going to be crass, maybe he shouldn't have snapped his Achilles in the first place?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

14 minutes ago, Pigeon Lofter said:

Would you be saying exactly the same thing if Griffin had a heart attack?

It's not a head injury, so fair play apparently.