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

[Wellsy4HullFC]

54 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But that's the point.  We shouldn't be adding laws just because people are feeling unhappy or uncomfortable.

We shouldn't be adding new laws because people are unhappy? Why? That's how sport evolves.

Strange take on a spectator sport to not adapt when people are unhappy.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

We shouldn't be adding new laws because people are unhappy? Why? That's how sport evolves.

Strange take on a spectator sport to not adapt when people are unhappy.

I'm not unhappy with the law that an injured player losing possession should be considered a knock on. Of course it's tough luck but that's sport.

You are unhappy.  And I will take it on face value that it is the principle you care about and not that it was a Hull player.

I do however think it is extremely unfair if a player slips when he takes a shot at goal, loses his footing and misses so I think in that situation we should let them have another go.

[Padge]

27 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

We shouldn't be adding new laws because people are unhappy? Why? That's how sport evolves.

Strange take on a spectator sport to not adapt when people are unhappy.

We would still be playing inion.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not unhappy with the law that an injured player losing possession should be considered a knock on. Of course it's tough luck but that's sport.

You are unhappy.  And I will take it on face value that it is the principle you care about and not that it was a Hull player.

I do however think it is extremely unfair if a player slips when he takes a shot at goal, loses his footing and misses so I think in that situation we should let them have another go.

That's your prerogative. I'd say that if he slips, he hasn't executed the skill well enough.

Keeping your Achilles attached isn't exactly a skill.

[yipyee]

9 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That's your prerogative. I'd say that if he slips, he hasn't executed the skill well enough.

Keeping your Achilles attached isn't exactly a skill.

What if he slips and pulls a muscle, surely in your weird and wonderfull rule changes that would be ok to retake it?

And then players that miss could hpld their leg and start to limp and every kick would be retaken that missed!

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That's your prerogative. I'd say that if he slips, he hasn't executed the skill well enough.

Keeping your Achilles attached isn't exactly a skill.

I have been careful to not criticise Griffin on this thread as it is a bad injury and very painful.

But.

There is no doubt that it is possible to rupture your achilles and not drop the ball and so it could be argued that Griffin didn't execute that skill well enough either.

[DavidM]

So we’re introducing a law covering injury , with no foul play involved . Presumably at the discretion of the official . 

[dkw]

32 minutes ago, DavidM said:

So we’re introducing a law covering injury , with no foul play involved . Presumably at the discretion of the official . 

Thats pretty much it, some want a referee who has no training regarding injuries to make uneducated, knee jerk decisions based on something he knows nothing about, in an instant. Great idea....

[Saint Toppy]

14 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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.

I'll take the opinion of 3 ex-professional players, the referee's and the current Hull head coach over your poor argument any day. None of them think there's any need for any sort of rule change or that the Griffin/Fages try was nothing more than a 1 off unfortunate incident where everyone involved just played exactly to the rules of the game.

[Saint Toppy]

12 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

 

Two things.  1)    The ref should have chalked off the try, by making up whatever rule he liked. 

Clown of the year comment !!! 

[Dunbar]

One of the toughest assignments in Rugby League is for a winger to bring back a well positioned kick to the corner with half the opposing team bearing down on him at a hundred miles an hour.

With this proposed change, all he would need to do is throw the ball away, hold his knee, get a bit of treatment while his teammates all get back behind the ball and start a new set in a nice controlled way.

[Spidey]

34 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

One of the toughest assignments in Rugby League is for a winger to bring back a well positioned kick to the corner with half the opposing team bearing down on him at a hundred miles an hour.

With this proposed change, all he would need to do is throw the ball away, hold his knee, get a bit of treatment while his teammates all get back behind the ball and start a new set in a nice controlled way.

Not if possession was surrendered

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

I'll take the opinion of 3 ex-professional players, the referee's and the current Hull head coach over your poor argument any day. None of them think there's any need for any sort of rule change or that the Griffin/Fages try was nothing more than a 1 off unfortunate incident where everyone involved just played exactly to the rules of the game.

Of course you will. Just as you would take the opposite view had the position been reversed. 

[Dunbar]

We appear to be going around in circles and so I am going to leave my final thoughts on this topic and step away (feel free to respond, I am not trying to have the last word).

Griffin dropped ball and Fages picked it up and scored.

Maybe Griffin shouldn't have dropped the ball despite being in pain but he did.

Maybe Fages shouldn't have picked it up and scored but he did.

Some people say it was fair game, some say it was bad sportsmanship.  Some people think that Saints should have given FC a try back and some say these are the breaks in professional sport.  These are just opinions and nothing can be settled on opinions.

The laws of the game were applied and we don't need any new laws - not least those based on the opinions above as we will get nowhere.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

14 hours ago, yipyee said:

What if he slips and pulls a muscle, surely in your weird and wonderfull rule changes that would be ok to retake it?

And then players that miss could hpld their leg and start to limp and every kick would be retaken that missed!

The mechanics of football and the mechanics of rugby league are very different.

Also, if you're going to continue to be insulting in your responses to me just because you disagree with me, there's no point in you carrying on.

[redjonn]

On 06/06/2021 at 16:55, FearTheVee said:

how should the players and ref assess dropped balls?

Should the opposing team pick up the ball then everyone stand still and wait to see whether the player is badly hurt or just hurt or just pretending to be hurt, then decide how to carry on?

Or perhaps we just accept that sometimes injured players might drop the ball in unfortunate situations just like injured players might miss a tackle.

he shouldn't, play to the law and to the whistle... as I tried to say it was the right decision by the ref to let play on... and in this case Farges took the opportunity.

[Rupert Prince]

7 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Clown of the year comment !!! 

I don't care.  Refs are making it up on the 6 again rule and stripping the ball amongst others.  The game is Jokesville Arizona.

And you don't care about Fages and others being unsportsmanlike.

[Exiled Wiganer]

6 hours ago, Dunbar said:

We appear to be going around in circles and so I am going to leave my final thoughts on this topic and step away (feel free to respond, I am not trying to have the last word).

Griffin dropped ball and Fages picked it up and scored.

Maybe Griffin shouldn't have dropped the ball despite being in pain but he did.

Maybe Fages shouldn't have picked it up and scored but he did.

Some people say it was fair game, some say it was bad sportsmanship.  Some people think that Saints should have given FC a try back and some say these are the breaks in professional sport.  These are just opinions and nothing can be settled on opinions.

The laws of the game were applied and we don't need any new laws - not least those based on the opinions above as we will get nowhere.

On that spectrum, I am firmly in the “Fages knew what he was doing, but chose to do the wrong thing camp”, plus Coote kicking the goal was even worse.

I have no particular views on the letter of the law, but looking at from the converse position, had Fages’ reaction been to stop and see how badly injured Griffin was, and/or Coote to decline the kick and/or Saints allowed FC a level up try then I would be at the front of the queue applauding them having done the right thing.
 

I am yet to read any Saints’ fans asserting that they would be apoplectic had any of those things happened, which I think says all that needs to be said. 

[meast]

20 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

OK.  If seen the BBC clips.  It looks to me that as Griffin got his injury he took a step maybe 2 and had to stop.  It was clear at that point he had a serious injury. He had to fall, but he was on one leg. He had to support himself, he did not throw the ball away, he needed to support himself. He had to drop the ball, he was incapable of holding on to it.

It's not clear what Fages saw but 2 Saints players stopped to help him.

Two things.  1)    The ref should have chalked off the try, by making up whatever rule he liked.  I don't blame the referee, but all he had to do was call off time and go back to look at Griffin, then make a decision, no need necessarily to ask the Video Ref, he simply could call dead vall, or helf or what ever.  There is no time limit on calling try or no try.     2)    Otherwise, as clearly some Saints players knew what happened and themselves stopped dead, Saints should have conceded a try right off the kick off. I believe it was close to the end of the 1st half anyway.

This was very sad, very upsetting, very unedifying.  The thing to me which I am unhappy about is that I believe Griffin had to drop the ball, a try was not deserved.

No need for rule changes.

That is preposterous straight away, it was pure bad luck, you can't make a rule up during a game ffs!

[meast]

Here's another theoretical scenario,

Hull derby or Wigan-Saints, close game, the ball is carried by the winger , suddenly a bird swoops down and attacks him forcing him to lose possession, opposition player, let's say, Hull or Wigan player picks it up and scores a try.

Do we then invent a rule by which if a player is attacked by wildlife then the referee has to disallow the try?

That's why we can't go around inventing rules for things that are pure bad luck!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 minutes ago, meast said:

Here's another theoretical scenario,

Hull derby or Wigan-Saints, close game, the ball is carried by the winger , suddenly a bird swoops down and attacks him forcing him to lose possession, opposition player, let's say, Hull or Wigan player picks it up and scores a try.

Do we then invent a rule by which if a player is attacked by wildlife then the referee has to disallow the try?

That's why we can't go around inventing rules for things that are pure bad luck!

There already is a rule for if something from outside the field of play enters the field of play and disturbs the action.

[Josef K]

I’ve not read every page on here so i don’t know if this has been mentioned, but didn’t FC beat Cas last season with a try that came from a what they called a “controversial moment”. Cas/FC players were doing a bit of pushing & shoving and growling in back play, Jordan Johnson went through a huge gap and scored. Andy Last said “he played to the whistle”, Powell called it nonsensical. I don’t know if FC fan’s were telling their players to let Cas score. 

[yipyee]

4 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The mechanics of football and the mechanics of rugby league are very different.

Also, if you're going to continue to be insulting in your responses to me just because you disagree with me, there's no point in you carrying on.

I dont understand why you are talking about football.. I am on about RL

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

On that spectrum, I am firmly in the “Fages knew what he was doing, but chose to do the wrong thing camp”, plus Coote kicking the goal was even worse.

I have no particular views on the letter of the law, but looking at from the converse position, had Fages’ reaction been to stop and see how badly injured Griffin was, and/or Coote to decline the kick and/or Saints allowed FC a level up try then I would be at the front of the queue applauding them having done the right thing.
 

I am yet to read any Saints’ fans asserting that they would be apoplectic had any of those things happened, which I think says all that needs to be said. 

Player drops the ball

Opposing player picks it up and scores

The rest is crooked thinking based on if you hate saints or not, simple as

The ref made a call in real time, the video ref had time to think and agreed.

I have seen far worse where players knew the ref had got it wrong but scored anyway, Leeds at magic, a knock on in the hull derby are the worst 2 I can think of, several times a season the camera catches players smirking as they know they have got away with one etc.. All the players just play to the whistle and then see what the ref does next.

Nothing to see here, move along please..

[Exiled Wiganer]

25 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Player drops the ball

Opposing player picks it up and scores

The rest is crooked thinking based on if you hate saints or not, simple as

The ref made a call in real time, the video ref had time to think and agreed.

I have seen far worse where players knew the ref had got it wrong but scored anyway, Leeds at magic, a knock on in the hull derby are the worst 2 I can think of, several times a season the camera catches players smirking as they know they have got away with one etc.. All the players just play to the whistle and then see what the ref does next.

Nothing to see here, move along please..

It cuts both ways, of course. One man’s “crooked thinking” is another man’s one eyed blindness.

I see that you don’t seem to have a view as to what your reaction would have been had any of the alternative endings occurred. Perhaps you would have been angry that Saints had looked beyond the letter of the law, rather than considered the spirit of the game?