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

[daz39]

18 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.

As i have already pointed out there is no spirit of the game law, this came direct from the mouth of a paid, top grade official.

Unsportsmanship/spirit is a matter of opinion not a law or rule.

[Padge]

28 minutes ago, daz39 said:

As i have already pointed out there is no spirit of the game law, this came direct from the mouth of a paid, top grade official.

Unsportsmanship/spirit is a matter of opinion not a law or rule.

Go and read the Laws of the game, it is quite clearly in there. Your top grade official is an idiot if he doesn't know it is there and not fit to be a top grade official, if he exists.

 

[daz39]

13 hours ago, Padge said:

Go and read the Laws of the game, it is quite clearly in there. Your top grade official is an idiot if he doesn't know it is there and not fit to be a top grade official, if he exists.

 

Jeez....as we've tried to explain to you, what happened on saturday cannot be included in that as what happened wasn't against the spirit of the game, it was perfectly fair and legal and is a subjective thing that people differ on.

As you can see, scoring a perfectly legal try is surprisingly omitted from the 'not in the spirit' category.

.

[bobbruce]

12 hours ago, yipyee said:

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

Is it like spirit of the salary cap. 

[Padge]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

Jeez....as we've tried to explain to you, what happened on saturday cannot be included in that as what happened wasn't against the spirit of the game, it was perfectly fair and legal and is a subjective thing that people differ on.

 

As you can see, scoring a perfectly legal try is surprisingly omitted from the 'not in the true spirit' category.

Hang on you have been telling us that it doesn't exist from your "contact", now it does exist. Which exists and which doesn't the law that clearly states it or you mate in the pub. What you have you have posted there is what is included, as far as foul play and nothing else. Read what it says it the top it clearly says includes and not IS.

[voteronniegibbs]

13 hours 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.

 

13 hours ago, Padge said:

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

I played in a cup final ( t'other code *) and a player shouted a profanity whilst at the bottom of a ruck, the ref gave a penalty against him for foul language............. in a cup final

 

* other sports played are available on request

[Jim Prendle]

14 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

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

Oh did I?

Please enlighten me.

 

[daz39]

11 hours ago, Padge said:

Hang on you have been telling us that it doesn't exist from your "contact", now it does exist. Which exists and which doesn't the law that clearly states it or you mate in the pub. What you have you have posted there is what is included, as far as foul play and nothing else. Read what it says it the top it clearly says includes and not IS.

Eh? the law that you think means the referee can and should have dissalowed the try on the basis of 'not in the spirit of the game' doesn't exist, there is nothing anywhere under any category in any rule or any law to state that a referee can penalise a perfectly legal try thotugh what is preceived as unfair on an internet message board.

You seems to be convinced there is so please show me where this rule is, the actual one you are refererring to please because myself and my acquantance are still to find this in the laws of the game. Thanks

[JohnM]

If only Griffin had been sent off earlier, this thread would have been much shorter.

Josh Griffin: Injured Hull FC centre given two-game ban for dangerous contact - BBC Sport

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, daz39 said:

Eh? the law that you think means the referee can and should have dissalowed the try on the basis of 'not in the spirit of the game' doesn't exist, there is nothing anywhere under any category in any rule or any law to state that a referee can penalise a perfectly legal try thotugh what is preceived as unfair on an internet message board.

You seems to be convinced there is so please show me where this rule is, the actual one you are refererring to please because myself and my acquantance are still to find this in the laws of the game. Thanks

Whatever evidence or proof is presented, you will not accept it, so why bother?

By the way, this isn't "an" Internet message board. It is THE Internet message board for our sport. HTH.

 

[daz39]

16 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Whatever evidence or proof is presented, you will not accept it, so why bother?

By the way, this isn't "an" Internet message board. It is THE Internet message board for our sport. HTH.

 

But i have proof that the law doesn't exist from a trained, paid professional match official, am i to dismiss his knowledge because someone on the internet say he's wrong?

I have yet to see any proof from anyone showing that scoring a perfectly legitimate try is against any law or rule!!!

[Spidey]

12 minutes ago, daz39 said:

But i have proof that the law doesn't exist from a trained, paid professional match official, am i to dismiss his knowledge because someone on the internet say he's wrong?

I have yet to see any proof from anyone showing that scoring a perfectly legitimate try is against any law or rule!!!

Name the official 

[daz39]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Name the official 

Obviously i won't name him....

 

[Spidey]

20 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Obviously i won't name him....

 

Then its not really proof  

[daz39]

7 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Then its not really proof  

I've already quoted what he said previously.

[Dave T]

I think it is very clear that this rule couldn't have been enforced for this. Acting against the spirit of the game suggests some kind of rule-bending - cheating that maybe doesn't have a written rule to prevent it. 

We also know what is written doesn't accurately reflect how the game is refereed. 

Maybe people could highlight any examples of the ref penalising somebody for acting against the spirit of the game? Because outside of technical arguments about wording in the lawbook, it is clear that daz is right - there is nothing the ref could do - and that is why he didn't.

[daz39]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think it is very clear that this rule couldn't have been enforced for this. Acting against the spirit of the game suggests some kind of rule-bending - cheating that maybe doesn't have a written rule to prevent it. 

We also know what is written doesn't accurately reflect how the game is refereed. 

Maybe people could highlight any examples of the ref penalising somebody for acting against the spirit of the game? Because outside of technical arguments about wording in the lawbook, it is clear that daz is right - there is nothing the ref could do - and that is why he didn't.

Thank you, glad someone gets it.

[Dunbar]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think it is very clear that this rule couldn't have been enforced for this. Acting against the spirit of the game suggests some kind of rule-bending - cheating that maybe doesn't have a written rule to prevent it. 

We also know what is written doesn't accurately reflect how the game is refereed. 

Maybe people could highlight any examples of the ref penalising somebody for acting against the spirit of the game? Because outside of technical arguments about wording in the lawbook, it is clear that daz is right - there is nothing the ref could do - and that is why he didn't.

Well, I said I wouldn't post on this again but you can't keep a good idiot down!

It's clear that the 'behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game' is a catch all for anything that isn't already covered in the misconduct section such as dropping knees on a player, striking, kicking, tripping etc etc.  Then in the list of grading for the 'behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game' there is a catch all called 'other contrary behaviour' alongside the spitting, biting, gouging and all the other things that they can think of.

Two things are pretty obvious to me. 

One, is that these catch all categories have been created so that any type of contrary behaviour not thought of could be identified and punished.

And two, picking up a ball and scoring a try is never going to be one of them

[Padge]

On 10/06/2021 at 09:29, daz39 said:

Eh? the law that you think means the referee can and should have dissalowed the try on the basis of 'not in the spirit of the game' doesn't exist, there is nothing anywhere under any category in any rule or any law to state that a referee can penalise a perfectly legal try thotugh what is preceived as unfair on an internet message board.

You seems to be convinced there is so please show me where this rule is, the actual one you are refererring to please because myself and my acquantance are still to find this in the laws of the game. Thanks

How many times do I have to post the particular law of the game before it sinks in.

It is a catch all law that refs can use.

[Angelic Upstart]

Is this really still going on! As good old Stevo used to say "It's fish & chip paper now". Move on.

[Padge]

Just now, Padge said:

How many times do I have to post the particular law of the game before it sinks in.

It is a catch all law that refs can use.

 

 

On 10/06/2021 at 20:26, Dunbar said:

Well, I said I wouldn't post on this again but you can't keep a good idiot down!

It's clear that the 'behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game' is a catch all for anything that isn't already covered in the misconduct section such as dropping knees on a player, striking, kicking, tripping etc etc.  Then in the list of grading for the 'behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game' there is a catch all called 'other contrary behaviour' alongside the spitting, biting, gouging and all the other things that they can think of.

Two things are pretty obvious to me. 

One, is that these catch all categories have been created so that any type of contrary behaviour not thought of could be identified and punished.

And two, picking up a ball and scoring a try is never going to be one of them

The ref went to the screen in the vain hope there was reason to disallow it, he had a real problem. The Law as is written would have given Hull a penalty, what occurred wasn't really a penalty offence, but it was certainly not in the spirit of how the sport should be played. The sporting thing that should have happened is that Hull gifted, as they accepted, a try.

I have repeated and been consistent on this, if the ref didn't apply the law Saints should have done the right thing.

 

One other thing, i have been accused of being contradictory quite a few times by certain posters because I said Fage should be stretchered off. Lets set the record straight on this one, for the hard of understanding, I replied to a post with a quip, which had a smiley on the end to show it was a joke. If the accusers can show that that was not the context then step up and show all the quotes in succession and let people make up their own mind.

[yipyee]

On 10/06/2021 at 01:03, voteronniegibbs said:

 

I played in a cup final ( t'other code *) and a player shouted a profanity whilst at the bottom of a ruck, the ref gave a penalty against him for foul language............. in a cup final

 

* other sports played are available on request

In the post above language against match officials or racist language etc is againdt the rules of the game

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, Padge said:

How many times do I have to post the particular law of the game before it sinks in.

It is a catch all law that refs can use.

I think its more for the disciplinary panel, particularly when the rule book has the gradings of incident next to them. Interestingly they are all foul play mostly to do with atttacking an opposing player to cause injury or attacking a referee..

For a fine/ban with financial consequences this level of detail is required to prevent counter claims..

For the ref on the field, he doesnt need to use a clause of a clause to see that nothing was wrong with fages try.

[yipyee]

On 09/06/2021 at 19:19, daz39 said:

As i have already pointed out there is no spirit of the game law, this came direct from the mouth of a paid, top grade official.

Unsportsmanship/spirit is a matter of opinion not a law or rule.

Should last years cup game vs saints where gelling headed the ball before scoring be dissallowed as not in the spirit of the game?

Swings and roundabouts