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

[yipyee]

6 hours ago, Padge said:

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

They dont anymore they play on. The ref stops the game for head injuries but other than that the players only kick the ball out if their player is injured.

[yipyee]

6 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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. 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.

Point 3..

You are on your line, the forwards are still walking back onside, everyone is gassed, you drop the ball and hold your leg, everyone has a breather, your props drive you from your own line..

Very similar to what happened to Griffin only he obviously wasnt feigning. Football carries on now when a player goes down for this very reason

[Wellsy4HullFC]

5 minutes ago, yipyee said:

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..

I've told you exactly where I draw the line - when a player gives up possession unopposed. There are no circumstances where that would be an average.

[yipyee]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I've told you exactly where I draw the line - when a player gives up possession unopposed. There are no circumstances where that would be an average.

As above of course there is, another is a knock on, go down hold a body part and you would get the game stooped and the ball returned

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

Point 3..

You are on your line, the forwards are still walking back onside, everyone is gassed, you drop the ball and hold your leg, everyone has a breather, your props drive you from your own line..

Very similar to what happened to Griffin only he obviously wasnt feigning. Football carries on now when a player goes down for this very reason

Why would he drop the ball? Why wouldn't he just take the tackle and then hold his leg? Or just drop to the floor holding the ball? There would be absolutely no point in risking releasing the ball if he didn't need to for that advantage.

[yipyee]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Why would he drop the ball? Why wouldn't he just take the tackle and then hold his leg? Or just drop to the floor holding the ball? There would be absolutely no point in risking releasing the ball if he didn't need to for that advantage.

I dont know why the fool let go of the ball. Griffin should have done exactly as you described

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

As above of course there is, another is a knock on, go down hold a body part and you would get the game stooped and the ball returned

That wouldn't be unopposed. If you knock on, you either do it in the catch (so don't have possession of the ball) or in the tackle. If they do it in the carry, it is incredibly clear if they're injured before they release the ball.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, yipyee said:

I dont know why the fool let go of the ball. Griffin should have done exactly as you described

Have you ever ruptured your Achilles?

There are circumstances where a player in possession would not be able to hold on to the ball because if a medical issue.

Extreme example, what if he'd have had a heart attack? It's not a head injury. Do you play on and call it bad luck? Or do you stop the game immediately?

[daz39]

9 hours ago, Padge said:

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.

 

I didn't say it was a tactic, the fact is it did happen and it was bad luck as i keep saying, are we now to make new rules up everytime something happens that doesn't usually happen just in case it happens to happen again?

And if it was to become a rule i'm sure there would be coaches and players taking advantage of a forced stoppage in play if they are under pressure etc if they know play gets stopped immediately, giviing themselves a chance to regroup while the ref decides if it's a serious injury or not - it's stupid, bad luck is human nature, you cannot legislate for it.

[Davo5]

Is this still going,I would normally say Let It Go,but that seems to be the problem.

At least we don’t have to suffer the we had to travel all the way to Leigh excuse.

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That wouldn't be unopposed. If you knock on, you either do it in the catch (so don't have possession of the ball) or in the tackle. If they do it in the carry, it is incredibly clear if they're injured before they release the ball.

Incredibly clear with replays and hindsight, be easy to fake and putting unnecessary pressure on the ref like saturdays incident. The ref did the right thing and is getting stick off muppets in the stand, and online like yourself..

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Have you ever ruptured your Achilles?

There are circumstances where a player in possession would not be able to hold on to the ball because if a medical issue.

Extreme example, what if he'd have had a heart attack? It's not a head injury. Do you play on and call it bad luck? Or do you stop the game immediately?

I have ruptured my archilles actually so am speaking from experience, I couldnt move fell to the floor and a defender tpuched me for tackle complete. The ref then held up the game for an injury.

[Saint Toppy]

Quite funny reading page after page of Saints haters on here desperately trying to come up with some sort of justification for disallowing Fages try or to gift Hull a try of their own. It clearly shows they have absolutely no idea about the game and how its played at a professional level, and the 3 ex-players in the studio summed up the incident perfectly;

From the moment you start playing the game your taught to play to the whistle, which is exactly what Fages did.

There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says the referee should stop the game instantly if a player appears to be injured or if they throw the ball away to the opposition, in fact play continues until the next natural stoppage in play which is usually either the next completed tackle or some sort of infringement that stops the game. In nearly 40 years of watching the game i've never seen a referee stop a game mid-play. Players get injured in games all the time and the play always continues until one of the above happens.

Also in all that time i can't ever remember seeing an injured player just throw the ball away like Griffin did. He didn't lose it in a tackle due to injury, he chose to just throw it on the floor.

At the end of the day the players & officials played exactly to the rules of the game. So if any angry Hull fans or Saints haters want anyone to blame then the only person at fault in the whole incident was Griffin. Yes he was clearly in excruciating pain but the onus is 100% on him to just keep hold of the ball and go to ground to get play stopped.

In the end that 1 incident had little effect on the overall result. The opening 15mins Hull were on top largely due to Saints gifting them possession & field position due to unforced errors. But even then Hull failed to capitalise, only coming away with 2 points. After that Saints were dominant and first 3 occasions they got into the Hull half they came away with points.

Aside for the first 15mins Hull only then had another 10min spell in the 2nd half where they were the dominant team. By that time the game was slipping away from them and they resorted to off the cuff throwing the ball around in the hope of creating something. It worked to get them a few scores but that type of play is always very high risk, proved by the fact that Connor tried it once too often and had his flick pass picked off by Grace who ran the length to close the game out.

With or without the Griffin/Fages incident, Saints were the dominant team for the majority of that match and deserved their place in the final against Cas, Hull just weren't good enough on the day. 

 

[JohnM]

30 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Incredibly clear with replays and hindsight, be easy to fake and putting unnecessary pressure on the ref like saturdays incident. The ref did the right thing and is getting stick off muppets in the stand, and online like yourself..

#proudtobeamuppet. Jim Henson sold the whole Muppets thing for $680 million, more than the entire value of St Helens Council.

[Tommygilf]

This won the FIFA fair play award.

I'd have personally expected Saints to do something similar frankly, but maybe that is expecting too much? It was controversial, but it was the "fair" thing to do

[Waynebennettswinger]

I don’t think I would have done what Fages did so I find it a little disappointing, I also have never seen a player give up the ball like Griffin did and that includes players who appear to be knocked out, but all of this is easy to say after the event when you’re not a player having to make split second decisions.

I can understand Hull fans feeling aggrieved but it is noticeable that the players and coaching staff have simply took it in their stride as they understand that a split second decision in a cup semi final has resulted in try that is perfectly within the rules.

Still there must have been something particularly bitter in the pastry this weekend, how anyone who supports Wigan can cry about fair play or morales is beyond belief. Not sure anyone in the game outside of Wigan thinks that club holds a high standard when it comes to fair play.

Still I guess Wigan fans were bored and decided to troll as they had no match on Cup semi final weekend.

[JohnM]

18 minutes ago, Waynebennettswinger said:

I don’t think I would have done what Fages did so I find it a little disappointing, I also have never seen a player give up the ball like Griffin did and that includes players who appear to be knocked out, but all of this is easy to say after the event when you’re not a player having to make split second decisions.

I can understand Hull fans feeling aggrieved but it is noticeable that the players and coaching staff have simply took it in their stride as they understand that a split second decision in a cup semi final has resulted in try that is perfectly within the rules.

Still there must have been something particularly bitter in the pastry this weekend, how anyone who supports Wigan can cry about fair play or morales is beyond belief. Not sure anyone in the game outside of Wigan thinks that club holds a high standard when it comes to fair play.

Still I guess Wigan fans were bored and decided to troll as they had no match on Cup semi final weekend.

This thread is about Saints  V Hull.  in any case, morales are pretty high at Wigan at present.

[Waynebennettswinger]

Just now, JohnM said:

This thread is about Saints  V Hull.  in any case, morales are pretty high at Wigan at present.

Oh yes a typo. Well done .

The thread is indeed about Saints V Hull. The Wigan fans are using is at a platform to vent their bitterness. Strange .

 

[north yorks trinity]

3 hours ago, yipyee said:

You are on your line, the forwards are still walking back onside, everyone is gassed, you drop the ball and hold your leg, everyone has a breather, your props drive you from your own line..

That could happen I agree. However, to counter that, if the new rule were introduced and applied, it should be automatic that the injured player leaves the field, not to return. There could still be an advantage in feigning for example with 1-2 minutes to go but it would be pretty obvious and if it became an issue then maybe consider a further tweak whereby the ball passes to the opposition for a controlled set restart after the injury has been dealt with.

Either way, however legal and understandable Fages actions were on Saturday, it left a sour taste in the mouth and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a little less respect for St Helens as a result.

 

[daz39]

I can only presume Griffin thought that the game would be stopped as to why he just threw the ball away otherwise you would try to keep hold of it.

[Saint Toppy]

For all those citing "morals" exactly where do you draw the line ?

What if you have a player loses the ball in the tackle and on then seeing the opposition pick it up and score then decided to pretend to be injured just to get the try disallowed ?

or lets say a player just slips over trying to catch a ball and the opposition picks it up and scores. So they then start pretending to have hurt themselves to get the try disallowed ?

What does the ref or video ref then do ? Do they order a full medical examination on the pitch to determine whether he's actually injured or not before deciding whether to disallow the try ? Unless they're medically trained & certified the officials can't make that decision.

Most injuries are just unfortunate (unless they're caused by foul play) and are part & parcel of a game like RL. I'm sure Griffin now realises he did a stupid thing in just throwing the ball away, but trying to change the rules or creates some completely unenforceable moral rule just opens a can of worms and would undoubtedly lead to numerous more contentious incidents in the future.  

[meast]

11 hours ago, Padge said:

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.

 

You're missing the point again,

Point being, the referee/umpires can't become arbitrators of what constitutes sportsmanship/fair play etc, they are there to enforce the rules and laws of the games not decide who should get points based on fairness etc.

If players and teams want to decide that then that is up to them, but you're asking for a referee to deny a legitimate try because you don't think it was fair, you simply can't ask a match official to do that.

[Padge]

2 hours ago, daz39 said:

I didn't say it was a tactic, the fact is it did happen and it was bad luck as i keep saying, are we now to make new rules up everytime something happens that doesn't usually happen just in case it happens to happen again?

And if it was to become a rule i'm sure there would be coaches and players taking advantage of a forced stoppage in play if they are under pressure etc if they know play gets stopped immediately, giviing themselves a chance to regroup while the ref decides if it's a serious injury or not - it's stupid, bad luck is human nature, you cannot legislate for it.

They can do that now with a head injury, yet another of arguments that is null and void.

[meast]

10 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

See my response to Padge 

I get they aren't like for like comparisons, I wasn't trying to compare the different scenarios, but pointing out that in sport, sometimes it's pure bad luck that stop you winning, again, we can't ask the match officials to judge what is and what isn't luck.

 

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, meast said:

Point being, the referee/umpires can't become arbitrators of what constitutes sportsmanship/fair play etc, they are there to enforce the rules and laws of the games not decide who should get points based on fairness etc.

I'm sorry but they absolutely can, they're the only impartial people on the field so best placed to do so