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

[north yorks trinity]

10 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

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

I think others have answered this when you asked earlier. In possession and unopposed have been suggested. Would those criteria address your concerns?

[Waynebennettswinger]

The reason particularly felt the need to mention the obvious bias and bitterness on this post before was that one of the Wigan posters who is posting away about misconduct and lack of sportsmanship is the same one who advocated that the best way for Hull to make a point was for them to ensure that Fages was stretchered off. No actual mention of foul play but the implication was obvious.

You can’t cry like a baby over bad sportsmanship and then suggest things like that.

Either man up or shut up.

[Padge]

1 hour ago, Waynebennettswinger said:

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 .

 

Give over. 

[Saint Toppy]

10 minutes ago, Padge said:

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

But they don't stop the game immediately with head injuries so your argument doesn't stack up. If there' a head injury and the ball is still in play then the ref lets the game continue until the next natural stoppage.

How many times do you see head injuries caused by a bit of "friendly fire" where 2 tacklers clash, maybe through poor tackling technique and the opposition breaks through the tackle because of it. The Ref doesn't stop play and call them back. If he did then it just penalises the attacking team for a good strong tackle busting run and rewards the defending team for a poor tackling technique.

[daz39]

10 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.

1.Is it fair to the Referees to give them that extra call and pressure when their job is to enforce the rules, which he did?

2.He did, he ruled that Griffin knocked on and it was play on, that was and will always be the correct call regardless of injury or not.

3. with your hypothetical rule it woud automatically stop play meaning it could be used as a tactic to gain a rest or set up a defensive line or an attacking play.

It doesn't need changing, the rules are fine as they are, we cannot and shouldn't create new rules to include bad luck or unfortunate scenarios. We simply have to suck it up and get on with it, as we always have in life and sport.

[daz39]

10 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.

Just as there was no guarantee Griffin wouldn't have held the ball in the tackle anyway, all the comparisons are poor as this is unique and has never happened before therefore there is nothing to compare it to.

[Saint Toppy]

13 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

I think others have answered this when you asked earlier. In possession and unopposed have been suggested. Would those criteria address your concerns?

Your still wanting to change the rules for what was a 1 in a million incident and was ultimately a brain fart by Griffin for throwing the ball away instead of just falling to the ground with ball in hand which would then have seen the game stopped the moment a defender put a hand on him.

Lets look at this another way then, what of Griffin had thrown the ball away and it had been picked up by a Hull player who then ran away and scored, should that have been a disallowed try ? No of course it shouldn't because you play to the whistle.

[daz39]

18 minutes ago, Spidey said:

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

Wouldn't denying 1 team a perfectly legal try through the fact they thought it was unfair make them biased against the scoring team then?

[FearTheVee]

1 minute ago, daz39 said:

Just as there was no guarantee Griffin wouldn't have held the ball in the tackle anyway, all the comparisons are poor as this is unique and has never happened before therefore there is nothing to compare it to.

It has happened before - hurt players drop the ball all the time, including unopposed, and opposition players pick the ball up.  Has it happened with a walk in try in a cup semi final? Probably not but again that takes us back to having to subjectively judge how much detriment is acceptable due to bad luck.

I understand it was difficult to watch because it was such bad fortune. It doesn’t sit well with me, not because it was unsportmanlike or because the ref should have done something else, but because you a) don’t like to see players injured and b) don’t like to see bad fortune cost points.

But bad fortune it was if you stand back from this you see what has always always been true in the sport - hurt players (Achilles or any other injury) instinctively try to go to ground with the ball because they know that injury isn’t a pass for dropping it for all the many and various subjective reasons covered in this thread.

if they drop it they drop it and it’s rotten bad luck, like all sorts of other injuries on the pitch which impact play are.

[north yorks trinity]

3 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Lets look at this another way then, what of Griffin had thrown the ball away and it had been picked up by a Hull player who then ran away and scored, should that have been a disallowed try ?

It's never straightforward I realise but in this instance I agree with you that the try should be allowed. I agree that you play to the whistle and a team should have right to disregard their own player's misfortune but I don't believe the opposition should have the same right. Basically I don't think the opposition should profit from an injury so severe that it leads to an unopposed player losing possession after the injury becomes obvious.

You say it's not worth changing the rules for something that is so rare. If it turns out that the new rule never gets applied then no-one has lost out so where's the harm?

[meast]

25 minutes ago, Spidey said:

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

But what's being suggested here isn't impartial, they're asking, insisting on a referee to disallow a try and penalise a player because it was bad luck that an opposition player got injured.

That's not impartiality, that's penalising a team that got lucky, that's a whole new ball game and leaves match officials open to all sorts of accusations.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Waynebennettswinger said:

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 .

 

Though it could be argued winding you up is its own reward. 
I will happily argue this point all day, as, regardless of the team, what he did was deliberate and wrong. It is more fascinating to see the range of reactions from his supporters - from he was just being professional to let’s build a statue in his honour. It wasn’t a good look admission would have been a start. 
I would be making these points whichever player had behaved like Fages and Coote. Honestly. 

[Dunbar]

The part of this conversation that I can't get my head around is that some people are suggesting that the ref should have subsequently disallowed the try because it wasn't fair to one of the teams.

If it wasn't for the tragic circumstances (Griffin's injury), it would be comical.

Players can decide if they want to rectify a perceived injustice with a sporting gesture. Ref's can't do that as they have to actually enforce the laws of the game.

[Waynebennettswinger]

2 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Though it could be argued winding you up is its own reward. 
I will happily argue this point all day, as, regardless of the team, what he did was deliberate and wrong. It is more fascinating to see the range of reactions from his supporters - from he was just being professional to let’s build a statue in his honour. It wasn’t a good look admission would have been a start. 
I would be making these points whichever player had behaved like Fages and Coote. Honestly. 

If that is honest then that is to your credit, no argument.

Clearly not all fans are the same, but the Wigan fan whinging about fair play and misconduct is the same person that was advocating that Fages should be stretchered off. 

That there are fans of a club that has been (dis)graced by Flower, Clubb and Hardaker on here crying about fair play is ironic to say the least. 

As a Saints fan, what happened doesn’t sit right but is legal. I would have preferred for no score or for Saints to allow a walk in unopposed. 
 

Hull officials and players aren’t overreacting like some here who clearly have their own vendetta. 

[Dave T]

I think it is all fine and have no issues with what happened in the slightest. Obviously I have sympathy with what happened, but we can't stop play when somebody is hurt like that, as we potentially have abuse of the system with a player losing it in the tackle and then staying down hurt if the other team plays on. 

I don' think ciritcism is warranted for anybody, the ref, Griffin, nor Fages.

[FearTheVee]

2 minutes ago, Waynebennettswinger said:

If that is honest then that is to your credit, no argument.

Clearly not all fans are the same, but the Wigan fan whinging about fair play and misconduct is the same person that was advocating that Fages should be stretchered off. 

That there are fans of a club that has been (dis)graced by Flower, Clubb and Hardaker on here crying about fair play is ironic to say the least. 

As a Saints fan, what happened doesn’t sit right but is legal. I would have preferred for no score or for Saints to allow a walk in unopposed. 
 

Hull officials and players aren’t overreacting like some here who clearly have their own vendetta. 

But even allowing a walk in try creates chaos.

At what point does the game cease to exist and the levelling up begin?  After the walk in try do we fabricate a situation where Hull are having to come off their line because that was what was happening before this "unsporting" try was scored, they were given a breather and some points?

If Saints pick the ball up, stop then score on the next tackle, we've still profited from the bad luck that is a ruptured achilles and a dropped ball - so it's still unfair?  Or is this now fair even though it's directly resulted from the same change in possession from the same bad luck?

Maybe you have to give the ball back to Hull for another player to PTB?  If so, what are the injuries and situations where this happens?

Or you chalk it down to what it was, rotten bad luck in a big game, and move on.

[Dave T]

I suppose there is sporting precedent for this kind of thing - in football players do kick the ball into touch instead of attacking. 

I wonder what would happen if a goalkeeper had a freak injury and an attacker had the chance to go and tap the ball in.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I suppose there is sporting precedent for this kind of thing - in football players do kick the ball into touch instead of attacking. 

I wonder what would happen if a goalkeeper had a freak injury and an attacker had the chance to go and tap the ball in.

See the Di Canio video - it wasn't even a tap in, but he stopped play by catching the ball

[daz39]

51 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Your still wanting to change the rules for what was a 1 in a million incident and was ultimately a brain fart by Griffin for throwing the ball away instead of just falling to the ground with ball in hand which would then have seen the game stopped the moment a defender put a hand on him.

Lets look at this another way then, what of Griffin had thrown the ball away and it had been picked up by a Hull player who then ran away and scored, should that have been a disallowed try ? No of course it shouldn't because you play to the whistle.

I've asked that question but it was conveniently ignored.

[Spidey]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it is all fine and have no issues with what happened in the slightest. Obviously I have sympathy with what happened, but we can't stop play when somebody is hurt like that, as we potentially have abuse of the system with a player losing it in the tackle and then staying down hurt if the other team plays on. 

I don' think ciritcism is warranted for anybody, the ref, Griffin, nor Fages.

I think it could be controlled, if somebody is injured and throws the ball away they give up possession but play stops immediately - I don't know of a situation in RL where giving up ball voluntarily could be an advantage and abused

[Dave T]

Just now, Spidey said:

I think it could be controlled, if somebody is injured and throws the ball away they give up possession but play stops immediately - I don't know of a situation in RL where giving up ball voluntarily could be an advantage and abused

It's more when you drop it, you then stay down and play dead. 

We see gaming around players feigning injury to get the VR to look at the tackle.

[north yorks trinity]

16 minutes ago, daz39 said:

I've asked that question but it was conveniently ignored.

I answered it when Toppy asked.

[Tommygilf]

So much of (British) sport is settled in common law style gentleman's agreements: Drop balls in football for example. 

There's nothing compelling anyone into any of this action beyond a shared sense of fair play and morality. In football, the goals that have been scored in "unfair circumstances" always count. The ref makes no moral judgement.

For all its purported "values", RU is one sport that plays on regardless untill the play is literally on top of an injured player and the medical staff.

In more gentlemanly conducted sport, you'd like to think opponents would act in a gentlemanly fashion. That also includes players not feigning injuries late on. However if you don't play in that spirit, don't expect it in return.

[Saint Toppy]

OK look at other sports as an example then, as people keep referring to football.

In F1 lets say Hamilton or Verstappen has an engine failure (which is just bad luck akin to an injury to a rugby player), does the other one voluntarily withdraw from the race or do they race on and try to take advantage of their opposition's misfortune ?

They race on every time - does that make then immoral or unsporting - No of course it doesn't because that's just the nature of competitive professional sport.

Given its an Olympic year lets look at another example then, its the final lap of say the 1500m and the race leader pulls a hamstring with only say 20m to go, do the other runners behind all stop and let the injured leader win the race or do they pass him ? - They pass him of course - does that make then immoral or unsporting ?

Professional sport can be cruel at times, particularly where injuries are concerned - but thats just part & parcel of sport.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours 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..

You still have not given an example of why anyone would drop the ball intentionally to fool the referee, yet you keep saying it like it would be some kind of tactic players would take advantage of? 

If you can't have discourse without resorting to calling people Muppets, perhaps you're not presenting your point very well? Especially considering after all this, you still are of the opinion that I've criticised the referee.

Where have I criticised the referee? Where have I've given him stick? Maybe everyone looks like Muppets to you because you don't understand the argument?...