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

[daz39]

18 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

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.

You'd have to ask the players their mindset and thoughts at the time as i have no idea, i'm sure there would have been different emotions ranging from concern to delight but the fact remains they as a team did nothing wrong and correctly continued as the game was still live, i also doubt very much that they had much time to process any thoughts on what had happened in the time it all unfolded.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

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.

Which is why I'm more angry at the Saints players than the ref. I've not criticised the ref once here.

Perhaps the addition of "If player loses the ball unopposed due to serious injury or medical issue, the game should instantly be stopped."

If the players won't do the right thing, the rules should force it. The ref would have the power to overrule any further action once they realise the situation at hand.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, daz39 said:

You'd have to ask the players their mindset and thoughts at the time as i have no idea, i'm sure there would have been different emotions ranging from concern to delight but the fact remains they as a team did nothing wrong and correctly continued as the game was still live, i also doubt very much that they had much time to process any thoughts on what had happened in the time it all unfolded.

They did not break the rules.

That's different to not doing anything wrong. There was everything wrong in regards to sporting morals and integrity to take advantage of such a situation.

[Padge]

44 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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.

I haven't asked the ref to do anything, I pointed out he had an option, I also pointed out a flaw in that option, but the option was there.

Saints chose, to their shame, to accept the points gifted to them.

[daz39]

9 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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

I'm pretty sure that players getting injured during a game is quite common so doesn't need a special rule for IF it happens unless you suggest we have a 100 page dossier and what the rules should be depending on the injury sustained, where on the field it happens and what kind of game it was?

I'm not quite sure i've seen a ball hit a bike on the field yet though which would need a seperate thought to it as opposed to something that happens probably half a dozen times in a game.

 

 

[daz39]

6 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Which is why I'm more angry at the Saints players than the ref. I've not criticised the ref once here.

Perhaps the addition of "If player loses the ball unopposed due to serious injury or medical issue, the game should instantly be stopped."

If the players won't do the right thing, the rules should force it. The ref would have the power to overrule any further action once they realise the situation at hand.

As has already been discussed who would decide how serious the injury is? how long do they have to decide if it's serious? what if players decided to feign a medical issue? how dooes the game continue if it isn't a serious injury etc, it is too big a can of worms to even contemplate opening.

[Padge]

7 minutes ago, daz39 said:

As has already been discussed who would decide how serious the injury is? how long do they have to decide if it's serious? what if players decided to feign a medical issue? how dooes the game continue if it isn't a serious injury etc, it is too big a can of worms to even contemplate opening.

Give over, a player near his own try line unopposed does not just throw the ball away, it is not a viable tactic by any stretch of imagination.

There is no can of worms to be opened, why would any player decide to throw himself to the floor and in the process throw the ball away risking the opposition getting possession or even scoring a try. The idea is preposterous.

 

[meast]

A lot of teeth gnashing but also some very good points on both sides of the debate.

It was unfortunate for Josh Griffin, it was extremely bad luck on Hull and Theo Fages and St Helens took advantage of that luck.

Whether Fages was unsportsmanlike in accepting the gift of a loose ball and a free run to the line is matter of opinion and debate, however to put any blame or any lack of empathy on the referee is wrong, Fages played on, the referee played on and even though Saints could have refused the conversion and offered Hull the possession back afterwards is, again, a matter of opinion and debate.

But I pose these theoretic examples as comparisons,  Olympic final of the 200m , on the home straight, one of the lead runners suffers a leg injury and goes down, do the other runners and race referee stop the race to see how serious the injury is?

Wimbledon final, match point, on serving, the player suffers an injury and goes down, the serve is returned as a winner as the opponent goes down, does the returner forfeit the point and does the umpire stop the game and void the point as the 90mph serve return whizzes over the net?

Football World cup final, keeper saves a shot, but then loses the ball due to an arm injury, opposing player taps the ball into the net, does the referee stop the game and disallow the goal?

Whilst they may not be direct examples, they are all examples of how bad luck can affect sport and how it's asking a lot of the arbitrator, although, again, theoretically, they could all happen, but highly unlikely.

As such we just have to put it down purely to gross bad luck for Griffin and Hull and wish him a full and speedy recovery.

[Padge]

9 minutes ago, meast said:

A lot of teeth gnashing but also some very good points on both sides of the debate.

It was unfortunate for Josh Griffin, it was extremely bad luck on Hull and Theo Fages and St Helens took advantage of that luck.

Whether Fages was unsportsmanlike in accepting the gift of a loose ball and a free run to the line is matter of opinion and debate, however to put any blame or any lack of empathy on the referee is wrong, Fages played on, the referee played on and even though Saints could have refused the conversion and offered Hull the possession back afterwards is, again, a matter of opinion and debate.

But I pose these theoretic examples as comparisons,  Olympic final of the 200m , on the home straight, one of the lead runners suffers a leg injury and goes down, do the other runners and race referee stop the race to see how serious the injury is?

Wimbledon final, match point, on serving, the player suffers an injury and goes down, the serve is returned as a winner as the opponent goes down, does the returner forfeit the point and does the umpire stop the game and void the point as the 90mph serve return whizzes over the net?

Football World cup final, keeper saves a shot, but then loses the ball due to an arm injury, opposing player taps the ball into the net, does the referee stop the game and disallow the goal?

Whilst they may not be direct examples, they are all examples of how bad luck can affect sport and how it's asking a lot of the arbitrator, although, again, theoretically, they could all happen, but highly unlikely.

As such we just have to put it down purely to gross bad luck for Griffin and Hull and wish him a full and speedy recovery.

This was not theoretical, it was real, Wellsy has done an excellent job of already debunking theoretical injuries earlier.

I suggest you look at the YouTube clip posted earlier from a soccer match that shows true sportsmanship. We have lost the moral high ground that we have been standing on for so long.

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

I love nothing more than seeing FC lose, ideally in a match of great importance and even better still with some sort of moment of totally unfair bad luck 

 

But that try was an disgrace, if my kid ran off with the ball and scored in that situation and embarrassed themselves like that they’d be grounded for a week. Everyone knew what had happened, and Theo made a choice 

 

 

 

 

[bobbruce]

2 hours 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.

 

It doesn’t 

[Padge]

5 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

It doesn’t 

We just stepped off the moral high ground and straight into the gutter.

Check Wellsy's video clip of how you show true sportsmanship.

[Padge]

Just putting this out there. It is not as a direct comparison but as an example.

 

At the 1969 Ryder Cup, an event that was dominated by the USA at the time, Britain's Jacklin and American Nicklaus reached the 18th hole all-square with the overall scores tied at 15.5-15.5.

It was the final match of the competition and, after Nicklaus holed his putt to make par, Jacklin faced a three-footer to earn the first ever tie in the event.

Instead of forcing his rival to take his shot, Nicklaus picked up Jacklin's ball marker and conceded the tie.

"I don't think you would have missed that Tony," Nicklaus said, "but I didn't want to give you the chance."

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

We just stepped off the moral high ground and straight into the gutter.

Check Wellsy's video clip of how you show true sportsmanship.

That’s fine but it’s from 15 years ago and is remembered because it’s virtually a one off. What about the thousands of other games ( virtually every other game before or since) were the injured player lies on the pitch and play goes on around them. As that is the rule in football now players should play on and the ref decides if the injury is serious enough to stop the game. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That’s fine but it’s from 15 years ago and is remembered because it’s virtually a one off. What about the thousands of other games ( virtually every other game before or since) were the injured player lies on the pitch and play goes on around them. As that is the rule in football now players should play on and the ref decides if the injury is serious enough to stop the game. 

I've seen hundreds of instances in football where a player is injured and they kick the ball out. It's hardly a one off.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, meast said:

But I pose these theoretic examples as comparisons,  Olympic final of the 200m , on the home straight, one of the lead runners suffers a leg injury and goes down, do the other runners and race referee stop the race to see how serious the injury is?

What would be the point? He wouldn't be able to continue and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. A very poor comparison.

1 hour ago, meast said:

Wimbledon final, match point, on serving, the player suffers an injury and goes down, the serve is returned as a winner as the opponent goes down, does the returner forfeit the point and does the umpire stop the game and void the point as the 90mph serve return whizzes over the net?

Again, what would be the point? The player is injured and wouldn't be able to continue. He would have to forfeit that match. If a player is injured in an individual sport, they have already lost. Very poor comparisons.

1 hour ago, meast said:

Football World cup final, keeper saves a shot, but then loses the ball due to an arm injury, opposing player taps the ball into the net, does the referee stop the game and disallow the goal?

Depends how he loses the ball. If he fails to catch the ball, it's fair game. If he has possession of the ball and surrenders it through some freak accident, it's poor sportsmanship to play on.

 

1 hour ago, meast said:

Whilst they may not be direct examples, they are all examples of how bad luck can affect sport and how it's asking a lot of the arbitrator, although, again, theoretically, they could all happen, but highly unlikely.

As such we just have to put it down purely to gross bad luck for Griffin and Hull and wish him a full and speedy recovery.

They are poor examples in comparison to what actually happened and miss the point entirely.

 

[yipyee]

3 hours 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 he wouldnt have been following the letter of the law and therefore being biased. The ref is only there to ensure the rules are followed.

The video ref didnt over rule either.

We are on the 17th page as some crazy fools are going against what every coach ever to have coached says which is play to the whistle

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I've seen hundreds of instances in football where a player is injured and they kick the ball out. It's hardly a one off.

And hundreds were they don’t. Let’s be honest apart from the Di Canio one they put it out reluctantly and when it suits. I agree that if Fages would’ve done similar it would’ve been a great sporting gesture. I just don’t think we can be too critical because he did what he’s been told to do all his career and what 99.9% of players would do play to the whistle. 

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, Pigeon Lofter said:

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.

Going back to a clip sky showed of the lions in 2006 I think it was when GB won in Australia... the clip was carney chasing inglis.. carney pulled up as his hamstring went, inglis scored the try.  Carney was having a medical emergency and limped off not to return. 

Did Inglis stop running, did inglis refuse to ground the ball. Did Australia let GB score a walk in try from kick off? Did Ashley cline disallow the try?

No no no and no. This in the semi is no different and what you are suggesting is absolute nonsense!!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

I'm pretty sure that players getting injured during a game is quite common so doesn't need a special rule for IF it happens unless you suggest we have a 100 page dossier and what the rules should be depending on the injury sustained, where on the field it happens and what kind of game it was?

Think you need to read my post again because it appears you either missed the point entirely or didn't understand it as that post does not seem to be a response to my point.

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

As has already been discussed

1. who would decide how serious the injury is?

2. how long do they have to decide if it's serious?

3. what if players decided to feign a medical issue?

4. how dooes the game continue if it isn't a serious injury etc,

5. it is too big a can of worms to even contemplate opening.

1. In my hypothetical example of a law change, the referee obviously.

2. The same amount of time they would need to decide any other incident. It's pretty obvious when an unopposed player drops the ball through injury.

3. Why would an unopposed player with possession feign a medical issue? This has been bandied about a few times now and no one has yet to give an example of an advantage an unopposed player in possession of the ball would get by releasing it. It's a non-issue.

4. Why would they relinquish possession if it wasn't a serious injury? A non-question.

An actual for question would be how would play continue it it WAS a serious injury? That would be up for debate, but I'd suggest a play the ball and the forfeit of the tackle.

5. It really isn't, because unless you can give an actual example of an advantage an unopposed player in possession would gain from giving up possession, it would never be applied under false pretences as there'd be no point.

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Going back to a clip sky showed of the lions in 2006 I think it was when GB won in Australia... the clip was carney chasing inglis.. carney pulled up as his hamstring went, inglis scored the try.  Carney was having a medical emergency and limped off not to return. 

Did Inglis stop running, did inglis refuse to ground the ball. Did Australia let GB score a walk in try from kick off? Did Ashley cline disallow the try?

No no no and no. This in the semi is no different and what you are suggesting is absolute nonsense!!

Another poor comparison, the injured party was not in possession.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Going back to a clip sky showed of the lions in 2006 I think it was when GB won in Australia... the clip was carney chasing inglis.. carney pulled up as his hamstring went, inglis scored the try.  Carney was having a medical emergency and limped off not to return. 

Did Inglis stop running, did inglis refuse to ground the ball. Did Australia let GB score a walk in try from kick off? Did Ashley cline disallow the try?

No no no and no. This in the semi is no different and what you are suggesting is absolute nonsense!!

Again, this is a completely different scenario. Carney didn't have possession. He never surrendered possession because he was injured, he just injured himself in an attempt to stop another player. There is no guarantee he would have stopped him otherwise.

[Padge]

32 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That’s fine but it’s from 15 years ago and is remembered because it’s virtually a one off. What about the thousands of other games ( virtually every other game before or since) were the injured player lies on the pitch and play goes on around them. As that is the rule in football now players should play on and the ref decides if the injury is serious enough to stop the game. 

Soccer players take matters into their own hands and stop play by making the ball dead, it happens regularly.

[yipyee]

6 hours ago, Padge said:

Another poor comparison, the injured party was not in possession.

Not a poor comparison you are a fool

[yipyee]

6 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Again, this is a completely different scenario. Carney didn't have possession. He never surrendered possession because he was injured, he just injured himself in an attempt to stop another player. There is no guarantee he would have stopped him otherwise.

Its a perfectly reasonable comparison, where do you draw the line? Blow up as soon as a players injured or play on to the whistle..