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

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Exactly. All that is being suggested is a law that if an unopposed player in possession loses the ball through injury, it counts as a tackle and the play restarts with a PTB by the same side at the point where the injury occurred. Probably won't happen if the majority think that's a bad idea but it feels like the right approach to me.

Far too subjective (the injury part... what seriousness of injury counts).

But a player losing a ball is covered in the laws today... its play on or a knock on depending on the direction lost and who collects the loose ball.

You simply can't start to include morals or sporting behaviour into the laws on play that is already covered by other laws... you can't start ruling out otherwise legal tries because 'some' people feel it is unfair.

[meast]

3 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I get there's luck in sport, but I don't think it's sporting to take advantage of this kind of situation at all. Possession has not been gained through why work out lost through any poor skill. It's cheap and in poor taste.

Which is why I said that individual clubs and players should decide on fair play and sportsmanship, not the match officials, or the laws of the game.

[meast]

4 hours 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.

Which was one of the scenarios I created earlier to make the point.

[meast]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

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.

Which is more or less what I asked above, I was told you can't compare the different scenarios though.

The one thing they all have in common with Josh Griffin and Hull though it was pure rotten bad luck, nothing more, morals shouldn't come into it.

[FearTheVee]

34 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Exactly. All that is being suggested is a law that if an unopposed player in possession loses the ball through injury, it counts as a tackle and the play restarts with a PTB by the same side at the point where the injury occurred. Probably won't happen if the majority think that's a bad idea but it feels like the right approach to me.

Bit of a daft question, but why are we making this arbitary distinction about what injuries justify dropping the ball without a knock on being given (ie unopposed)?

How are you defining unopposed - 20 metres from a player?  5?  Any time immediately before contact?  What sort of injury is OK - what about something flying into your eye?  Rolling your ankle in a way where you can carry on?

If a full back drop a ball cold, unopposed and goes down hurt - is that an unopposed injury?  Who decides?

When I played (at a rubbish standard!  ) - if I had been running the ball back from a kick, say 40 metres from any chaser, got something wrong with my return (maybe I hadn't warmed up properly and pulled a hamstring, maybe I got my feet a little wrong and turned an ankle or knee) and dropped the ball, I genuinely wouldn't for a second think that the game would be stopped for me.  I would feel very unluckly and feel sorry for myslef but not for a moment would I suggest the opposition couldn't pick the ball up and play on.

[Human Punk]

Perhaps someone will be able to confirm my recollection of the occasion when Paul Newlove was racing in to score for Saints with an open field in front of him, when 20 yards from the line he collapsed with, yes. a snapped achilles.

Would you believe that the opposition defender, on reaching him, picked up the ball and handed it to Anthony Sullivan to score under the sticks?

No, you wouldn't believe it, and rightly so because it didn't happen. Unless I'm mistaken, the opposition in the day were Hull. And I also believe that they won the match that day.

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

Exactly. All that is being suggested is a law that if an unopposed player in possession loses the ball through injury, it counts as a tackle and the play restarts with a PTB by the same side at the point where the injury occurred. Probably won't happen if the majority think that's a bad idea but it feels like the right approach to me.

You should stop digging now, your daft ideas are sinking further and further ! 

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

Exactly. All that is being suggested is a law that if an unopposed player in possession loses the ball through injury, it counts as a tackle and the play restarts with a PTB by the same side at the point where the injury occurred. Probably won't happen if the majority think that's a bad idea but it feels like the right approach to me.

Will we have a list of injuries that will count in this new law?. Who will decide if a player has a qualifying injury?. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

So whats your response to the other sports scenario's I mentioned (F1 and Olympic race). Do you think those that would benefit from those situations are immoral and unsporting because they took advantage of a piece of bad luck or an injury to a competitor ?

I've answered this question already. In an individual sport, if they cannot continue, they would have to forfeit anyway so what's the point in stopping to check on them? The game would be able to continue in team sports; you make a sub.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Well it seems that only you, the other Hull fans and the Saints haters on here would agree. All 3 ex-professional players in the commentary team and even the Hull coach just see it as an unfortunate incident and as a perfectly legal try with the Saints player fully entitled to pick the ball up and score.

Didn't the only Rovers fan to comment on here agree?

And many have said they were uneasy or undecided on it. If you're trying to paint this as sour grapes, your other arguments aren't stacking up for enough.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

That would be a terrible idea, widely open to abuse as a rule and just isn't needed. This is a one in a million freak occurrence, if we change the rules every time something odd happened the game would be a shambles.

Again, give one example of how it could be taken advantage of, let alone abused.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Well if the majority of the professional players are in agreement that it was not unsporting behaviour to take the opportunity for the score, why is there a need to create a law on unsporting behaviour?

That doesn't answer the question.

[Ullman]

2 hours ago, Human Punk said:

Perhaps someone will be able to confirm my recollection of the occasion when Paul Newlove was racing in to score for Saints with an open field in front of him, when 20 yards from the line he collapsed with, yes. a snapped achilles.

Would you believe that the opposition defender, on reaching him, picked up the ball and handed it to Anthony Sullivan to score under the sticks?

No, you wouldn't believe it, and rightly so because it didn't happen. Unless I'm mistaken, the opposition in the day were Hull. And I also believe that they won the match that day.

I can confirm that Anthony Sullivan never played for Hull if that helps.

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That doesn't answer the question.

Just because you don't like or agree with an answer doesn't stop it being an answer.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just because you don't like or agree with an answer doesn't stop it being an answer.

It not answering the question stops it being an answer.

 

The question was "How?" in relation to the suggestion it would be widely abused if the suggested rule was brought in.

You never answered. You just dismissed the idea of it in the first place, which is dodging the question.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It not answering the question stops it being an answer.

 

The question was "How?" in relation to the suggestion it would be widely abused if the suggested rule was brought in.

You never answered. You just dismissed the idea of it in the first place, which is dodging the question.

You are correct. 

I was putting forward my reasons why I felt it was a terrible idea, I didn't address how (if) it would be open to abuse.

I wasn't deliberately dodging the question but agree it looks like that.

[Waynebennettswinger]

18 minutes ago, Ullman said:

I can confirm that Anthony Sullivan never played for Hull if that helps.

No, but he did play for Saints which was his point.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

You are correct. 

I was putting forward my reasons why I felt it was a terrible idea, I didn't address how (if) it would be open to abuse.

I wasn't deliberately dodging the question but agree it looks like that.

Which is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

I'm fine with the fact that not all agree with the premise. It's quite polarising (and we love a good polarising topic!). Quite frankly, and I already said, some people quite frankly just don't see the need to change and nothing wrong with it, and that's an argument itself.

 

I'm not fine with some of the other arguments being put forward against it, mainly the "it would be taken advantage of/abused" as no one has given a valid example or justification of "how" it would be (hence why I jumped on your response as no one seems to answer that question with a convincing point).

[Ullman]

4 minutes ago, Waynebennettswinger said:

No, but he did play for Saints which was his point.

Yes it does make sense when I read it again.

[dkw]

46 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Again, give one example of how it could be taken advantage of, let alone abused.

As a way of breaking up play, giving your team mates a rest, slowing the momentum of a defense, pretty much the same as players try and do now only legitimising it. Its a ridiculous idea with no way of consistently implementing the rule,  it basically would be down to a refs guess, a ref that has no medical knowledge/training to make a decision like that.

[yipyee]

5 hours ago, Ullman said:

Completely uncalled for.

Not really it was a stupid thing to do

[yipyee]

6 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I feel like this has been says over and over again. There is a very clear line here - the player was unopposed in possession when he was injured. It is incredibly clear.

That is different to bring injured in action. And definitely different to bring injured without possession.

Slipping over whilst trying to catch the ball isn't possession, it's a failed attempt at possession and it would be clear the reason why they dropped it.

Every situation offered as some kind of argument is clearly different to the one presented - an unopposed player in possession relinquishing it due to injury. Give an example of that 

What about when Sam tomkins got knocked unconcious, he kept hold of the ball and scored a try, should this have been dissallowed as he was injured?!

More to the point if an unconcious man can keep hold of the ball why cant a professional player who hurt his leg?!?!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

Bit of a daft question, but why are we making this arbitary distinction about what injuries justify dropping the ball without a knock on being given (ie unopposed)?

A fair question, not daft at all and a huge part of the premise.

The sport is about skill, and there is no lack of skill involved in a player losing the ball due to a serious injury he sustains whilst simply running without contact; nor is there any skill involved recovering the ball from him afterwards. 

This is different to being injured in a tackle, which can be caused by poor technique from the attacker, and would be stopped if caused by foul play from the defender.

It's also different to a defender being injured unopposed as they haven't had their possession taken advantage of.

Again, that's my opinion (and the opinion of many others it seems we feel uneasy with the way it went down). But not the opinion of others.

[Ullman]

3 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

But not completely unexpected.

I see what you mean.

[yipyee]

6 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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?...

I do understand what you are saying... that the ref should be biased to a supposadly injured player in what would end up as a soccer match of everyone trying to con the ref, its bad enough at the play the ball as it is..

Oh and read back through the thread at all the examples I have given as to why players would feign injury.. you accuse me of not understanding but I think you should pause, take a breath and re-read the full thread