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

[daz39]

19 hours ago, Dunbar said:

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.

Exactly, rupturing your achilles doesn't, as far as i am aware, cause your hand to drop off so i can only think he presumed the game would be stopped for him.

I think Wellsy's problem is it happened to his team and that's why he is banging the 'new rule' drum, i doubt he would be so up for it if it was in a game between Salford and Wakefield, for example.

[daz39]

10 hours ago, DavidM said:

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

And the referee has to assess the nature and seriousness of the injury, as well as taking into account the importance of the game and the position on the field it happened, not to mention if he thinks it's fair or not, this on top of the other roles he needs to perform during a game, just in case someone else decides to throw the ball down near their own line in a cup semi final.

Sound stupid? exactly and that's what some are actually suggesting.

[daz39]

20 hours 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.

Maybe we could have ideas submitted on a Monday morning from fans who aren't happy with something over the previous weekend suggesting rule changes and the Rugby League public get to vote on which one they should create, yeah that'd be great !

[daz39]

9 hours 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.

Only if the referee deemed it was a serious injury and unfair on his team.

[Dave T]

Can we stop this nonsense about people only holding their view based on whether they like Saints or not?

I despise Saints and I don't think there is an issue with what they did. 

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Can we stop this nonsense about people only holding their view based on whether they like Saints or not?

I despise Saints and I don't think there is an issue with what they did. 

That’s essentially one side of the aggrieved (Wigan, eh, they’re the bastions of fair play and do everything above board). The other side is Hull FC fans. It’s boring now. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Josef K said:

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. 

Surely there's a difference between players choosing to run in when they're told not to, and a player seriously injuring himself unopposed? Just a thought...

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

Exactly, rupturing your achilles doesn't, as far as i am aware, cause your hand to drop off so i can only think he presumed the game would be stopped for him.

I think Wellsy's problem is it happened to his team and that's why he is banging the 'new rule' drum, i doubt he would be so up for it if it was in a game between Salford and Wakefield, for example.

If that's what you think then I'm not entertaining your replies anymore. Perhaps take your own advice and move along.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Can we stop this nonsense about people only holding their view based on whether they like Saints or not?

I despise Saints and I don't think there is an issue with what they did. 

Thank you.

I have no issue with people having an opposing view, but the idea that it's just to do with the team they support is just trying to shimmy away people's views. There was a Rovers fan earlier who was disgusted by it - I don't think that had anything to do with him hating Saints or liking Hull did it!

People have their opinion based on things that aren't "their team" or "their rivals". 

[yipyee]

3 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

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? 

Its not, 

Straight thinking is to strip the emotion away to the facts

Crooked thinking is to use these facts and word it in a way to support your argument.

In this case the straight thinking is man drops ball, opposing player picks it up and scores

All the other descriptions are based on if you agree or not.

For example freedom fighter/terrorist is in fact the same thing but the wording is purely down to if you support that persons cause. Stripping it back to straight thinking would be this person is opposing a system to try to bring about change.

So in summary

Player drops ball

Opposing player picks it up and scores.

No rules of the game were broken and therefore the try stood.

Interestingly there is no outcry from pundits, media (except the clickbate media), coaches, players etc... 

[Padge]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Its not, 

Straight thinking is to strip the emotion away to the facts

Crooked thinking is to use these facts and word it in a way to support your argument.

In this case the straight thinking is man drops ball, opposing player picks it up and scores

All the other descriptions are based on if you agree or not.

For example freedom fighter/terrorist is in fact the same thing but the wording is purely down to if you support that persons cause. Stripping it back to straight thinking would be this person is opposing a system to try to bring about change.

So in summary

Player drops ball

Opposing player picks it up ood.

Interestingly there is no outcry from pundits, media (except the clickbate media), coaches, players etc... 

No rules were broken, except the playing in the true spirit of the game one, which I have pointed out has its flaws and this put the ref in a difficult situation.

[Exiled Wiganer]

7 hours ago, Padge said:

No rules were broken, except the playing in the true spirit of the game one, which I have pointed out has its flaws and this put the ref in a difficult situation.

In yipyee’s world that’s crooked thinking. He doesn’t do “the true spirit”, he deals in finding the most simplistic cat sat on mat analysis he can find. 

[yipyee]

8 hours ago, Padge said:

No rules were broken, except the playing in the true spirit of the game one, which I have pointed out has its flaws and this put the ref in a difficult situation.

Spirit of the game is a myth that only exsists between friends

[Saint Toppy]

8 hours ago, Padge said:

No rules were broken, except the playing in the true spirit of the game one, which I have pointed out has its flaws and this put the ref in a difficult situation.

And that is not a rule because you can't define 'true spirit', everyone's interpretation of what's fair and what's not will be different. The player/team benefitting from it will see it as fair while the player/team not benefitting will see it as not fair, putting the officials in an impossible situation because whatever decision they make will see them being branded as biased one way or another if they have to try and interpret fair.

That's why we just have a set of defined rule to play to, and while some of them can be open to interpretation and some are enforced slightly differently by different officials, on the whole everyone knows what they're playing to.

[yipyee]

33 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

In yipyee’s world that’s crooked thinking. He doesn’t do “the true spirit”, he deals in finding the most simplistic cat sat on mat analysis he can find. 

Thats right it is, the true spirit doesnt exist, players cheering when an opponent makes a mistake, running over patting them on the head congratulating them, milking the play the ball for 6 again, gaskell throwing himself down to get a try chalked off, passing the ball into a player at the ruck for a penalty etc..

 

[Padge]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Spirit of the game is a myth that only exsists between friends

No, it exists in the laws of the game

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

And that is not a rule because you can't define 'true spirit', everyone's interpretation of what's fair and what's not will be different. The player/team benefitting from it will see it as fair while the player/team not benefitting will see it as not fair, putting the officials in an impossible situation because whatever decision they make will see them being branded as biased one way or another if they have to try and interpret fair.

That's why we just have a set of defined rule to play to, and while some of them can be open to interpretation and some are enforced slightly differently by different officials, on the whole everyone knows what they're playing to.

As I said it has its flaws, the main being applying it would have given Hull a penalty, it would be better if it gave the referee more options, other laws have options.

 

[FearTheVee]

10 hours ago, Padge said:

No rules were broken, except the playing in the true spirit of the game one, which I have pointed out has its flaws and this put the ref in a difficult situation.

I think swearing and name calling is against the true spirit of the game and should be penalised at the indivdual ref's sole discretion.

[Padge]

19 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

I think swearing and name calling is against the true spirit of the game and should be penalised at the indivdual ref's sole discretion.

I have no problem with that. On here name calling and swearing are dealt with by the referees at their discretion.

[Waynebennettswinger]

Common sense view from Martin Sadler
 

https://www.totalrl.com/fages-unfairly-picked-on/

[dkw]

11 hours ago, Padge said:

No rules were broken, except the playing in the true spirit of the game one, which I have pointed out has its flaws and this put the ref in a difficult situation.

Amazing turnaround in your thinking from last week where "rules are rules" was your shtick. 

[Padge]

7 minutes ago, dkw said:

Amazing turnaround in your thinking from last week where "rules are rules" was your shtick. 

No, I said exactly the same.

 

[Jim Prendle]

19 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s essentially one side of the aggrieved (Wigan, eh, they’re the bastions of fair play and do everything above board). The other side is Hull FC fans. It’s boring now. 

As Dave is a Warrington fan I see Wigan are still living rent free In your head.

[Hela Wigmen]

8 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

As Dave is a Warrington fan I see Wigan are still living rent free In your head.

I see you’ve missed the point James, again. 

[Josef K]

21 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Thank you.

I have no issue with people having an opposing view, but the idea that it's just to do with the team they support is just trying to shimmy away people's views. There was a Rovers fan earlier who was disgusted by it - I don't think that had anything to do with him hating Saints or liking Hull did it!

People have their opinion based on things that aren't "their team" or "their rivals". 

I think people will disagree on what happened. I would like to see Fages banned from the game and banned from the U.K. for life. 

But the final word is 

Hull FC 18 - 33 St Helens. 

[daz39]

22 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

If that's what you think then I'm not entertaining your replies anymore. Perhaps take your own advice and move along.

We're all more defensive and vocal when it's our own clubs at the rough end, that's natural.