Jump to content

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


Who will win?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Hull FC
      9
    • St Helens
      16

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 05/06/21 at 14:00

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

There was a bloke with a snapped Achilles in amongst the play. Of course he can stop play. Nothing random about it

Plus advantage is at the discretion of the referee. Saints getting possession from a controlled restart would still be an advantage

Maybe so but the ball wasn't dead, we can't just have players throwing the ball away to get the play stopped, they could be seriously injured, the could also not be, you can't stop the game to analyse an injury then just carry on if there isn't, what happened to Griffin was bad luck and unfortunate but the ball was still in play and therefore the game had to carry on.

I agree it was probably bad sportmanship but this was a cup semi final with a place at Wembley at stake, professional players take to the field first and foremost to win not to appease bedwetting fans on an internet forum.

Edited by daz39
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't agree with that at all. To be honest, I would have been OK with Saints stopping the game or even, after reflection, allowing an FC 'walk-through' try after the kick off. I would have been

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 bal

Griffin shouldn’t be throwing the ball away or none of that happens . Secondly Fages can’t instantly diagnose an injury , it’s split second . It’s tough but that’s the way it is until the ref interfer

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

If a player breaks the line, clear run for a try, pulls up a hamstring. Should the ref force the defending team to let the attacking team score because there was an unfortunate injury that cost them points because that is the sporting thing to do?

it’s a nonsense - you try to hold the ball when injured, sometimes you can’t. You try to make that tackle when you’re injured, sometimes you can’t. You try to finish that clean break when you’re injured, sometimes you can’t.

it’s just unfortunate. Anything about misconduct etc is bananas.

False equivalency? 😜

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daz39 said:

I agree it was probably bad sportmanship but this was a cup semi final with a place at Wembley at stake, professional players take to the field first and foremost to win not to appease bedwetting fans on an internet forum.

They do play to win within guidelines of conduct. 

Ive never said Saints or Fages needed to do anything. I’ve said the referee could and should have taken control of the situation in a different matter 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

False equivalency? 😜

It’s the same thing in reverse - just costing an attacking team points rather than a defending team for the exact same injury. Neither have anything to do with the ref and rightly so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I am entirely biased in this debate given how much I wanted Saints to win.

Whilst I am leaning towards being ok with Fages' actions, I don't know if that is because we benefited.

I am genuinely unsure what I would have thought if I had no interest in the outcome. 

That's why I have probably paid greater attention to the neutral observer in the debate.

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Rugby League's Road to Nowhere

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FearTheVee said:

It’s the same thing in reverse - just costing an attacking team points rather than a defending team for the exact same injury. Neither have anything to do with the ref and rightly so.

In the circumstance you said it’s unfortunate. A player could be prone and on the floor and there would be nothing in the laws of the game not to give him a hard tackle on the floor, generally speaking players wouldn’t do that as they recognise the situation. I think the ref could have done something that made sure Griffin was looked after and Saints would still have an advantage through possession, a gimmee try like that still just feels wrong to me

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

Do you honestly believe this nonsense?

I can imagine the disciplinary hearing - what was the misconduct? Well, he err, played to the whistle.

Or ....'I forgot to not score a try'

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Well the RFL and referee's associations seem to think he does as he keeps getting paid to officiate at appointments at the top level of the game but because you say he doesn't know what he's talking about he must be wrong then, i'll inform him he's in the wrong job when i chat to him later shall i?

As you have kindly copied and pasted from the RFL's website i will again quote my personal reference when he stated..."There's no such law as 'spirit of...' only ungentlemanly conduct of which this wouldn't be the case as there's been no breach in the law its just a one in a million chance unfortunately."

You seem to be missing the whole point that there has been NO LAW broken, therefore there is NOTHING to penalise and certainly no misconduct, scoring a try while the ball is live is in no way whatsoever misconduct.

No it is you that is missing the point that has been made all along, Fage acted within the laws of the game, I haven't seen anyone saying he didn't. What he did was not in the true spirit of sport is what people are saying, that means that technically the try could have been disallowed under the misconduct law I quoted, which your idiot official doesn't know exists, what other laws does he not know about.

What the vast majority of those who are unhappy about it have said is that Saints should have done the right thing and gifted a try to Hull considering the circumstances. It is not bl00dy rocket science.

The laws don't actually say racial abuse is an offence but somebody just got a 10 match ban for it. Why? because it is covered by the Misconduct law (f) uses offensive or obscene language.

 

 

 

  • Haha 2

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, johnh1 said:

You would have thought that Saints would have at least deliberately missed the conversion.

That wouldn’t have been enough, they should’ve deliberately lost the game just for Griffin. I just hope those cheats are made to play in black & white hoops. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Laws or not the referee can stop play whenever he wants. As soon as Griffin threw the ball away he could have blown the whistle and used his discretion on the restart afterwards. 

This...many times over.

                       And you can't fight the tears that ain't coming, or the moment of truth in your lies
                       When everything feels like the movies, yeah, you bleed just to know you're alive

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JohnM said:

It's ruined the game for me.  Its like someone picking the pocket of an accident victim.

It’s far worse than that JohnM, the game should’ve been postponed. The man of the match trophy at Wembley should be renamed The Griffin trophy. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Eddie said:

I’m a Saints fan but that doesn’t feel right to me at all. 

I’m a Saints fan and i didn’t see anything wrong with what Fages did. But i have heard in West Hull FC fans are burning French flags and effigies of Fages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I can understand the arguments both ways on Fages' conduct. There are merits to both sides. Fages is employed to win rugby league matches, that's it. He acted in a way that furthered that and there's no room for sympathy. Fages would not have stopped if Griffin was injured as a result of a big hit, or if he was limping (some may even encourage players to run at the injured player).

On the other, a player was seriously injured (and I think that was clear, even in the moment) and he chose to take advantage of that rather than show concern for an opponent who was in considerable distress.

What I cannot understand are the arguments that a referee should disallow a try that is legal on the basis of compassion, sympathy or because a player was injured. If we start asking referees to apply 'common sense', then we might as well throw the laws in the bin. If a defender starts limping as an attacker runs at him, then should the refereee disallow that? We are in a minefield if you ask officials to play doctor and say how serious an injury is in a second.

Brilliantly put !!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Padge said:

No it is you that is missing the point that has been made all along, Fage acted within the laws of the game, I haven't seen anyone saying he didn't. What he did was not in the true spirit of sport is what people are saying, that means that technically the try could have been disallowed under the misconduct law I quoted, which your idiot official doesn't know exists, what other laws does he not know about.

What the vast majority of those who are unhappy about it have said is that Saints should have done the right thing and gifted a try to Hull considering the circumstances. It is not bl00dy rocket science.

The laws don't actually say racial abuse is an offence but somebody just got a 10 match ban for it. Why? because it is covered by the Misconduct law (f) uses offensive or obscene language.

 

 

 

For that to make any sense Fages would have to be guilty of misconduct for picking up a dropped rugby ball.

which most sensible people can accept is nuts.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

For that to make any sense Fages would have to be guilty of misconduct for picking up a dropped rugby ball.

which most sensible people can accept is nuts.

There are dropped balls and there is what happened in front of Fages. Is it really the case that no Saints fan can see that he should have stopped? It isn’t a surprise but it’s a shame if that’s the case. The idea that it was within the rules and so nothing else should be taken into account, and even, in some cases seemingly that he did the right thing, would be astonishing if it weren’t sadly predictable. 

Edited by Exiled Wiganer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spidey said:

They do play to win within guidelines of conduct. 

Ive never said Saints or Fages needed to do anything. I’ve said the referee could and should have taken control of the situation in a different matter 

Again i disagree, the referee is there to uphold and apply the rules and laws of the game, he did that - correctly, asking him to also diagnose if a player who dropped a ball is injured or not and whether or not there is bad sportmanship is not in his assignments as far as i am aware.

We moan at ref's when they do make calls away from the rulebook and now if they don't? give them a break.

A referee CANNOT take any blame for an unfortunate injury and any subsequent try scored off the back of it, it's called BAD LUCK, there isn't and shouldn't be any blame attached to anyone!

Edited by daz39
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Josef K said:

But i have heard in West Hull FC fans are burning French flags and effigies of Fages. 

This is just bloody ridiculous.

Mind you, now I know the true behaviour of the French, I doubt I'll be watching any more reruns of Catalans excellent drubbing of Wigan again.

  • Haha 1

                       And you can't fight the tears that ain't coming, or the moment of truth in your lies
                       When everything feels like the movies, yeah, you bleed just to know you're alive

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spidey said:

In the circumstance you said it’s unfortunate. A player could be prone and on the floor and there would be nothing in the laws of the game not to give him a hard tackle on the floor, generally speaking players wouldn’t do that as they recognise the situation. I think the ref could have done something that made sure Griffin was looked after and Saints would still have an advantage through possession, a gimmee try like that still just feels wrong to me

How do you mean 'looked after'? isn't that what the physio's are for? what did you want him to do, abandon the game and cradle him with a blanket wrapped round him?

It was an injury on a rugby field during a game - it happens, regularly and is part and parcel of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Josef K said:

I’m a Saints fan and i didn’t see anything wrong with what Fages did. But i have heard in West Hull FC fans are burning French flags and effigies of Fages. 

Actually no, from what i've seen on various forums the majority have accepted it as what it is, bad luck, it seems it's mainly fans of other clubs banging the drum on their behalf

 

#justiceforjosh #prayforhull

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

That's why I have probably paid greater attention to the neutral observer in the debate.

Leon Pryce on the OurLeague commentary said the referee should've blown up for the injury and stopped the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Padge said:

No it is you that is missing the point that has been made all along, Fage acted within the laws of the game, I haven't seen anyone saying he didn't. What he did was not in the true spirit of sport is what people are saying, that means that technically the try could have been disallowed under the misconduct law I quoted, which your idiot official doesn't know exists, what other laws does he not know about.

What the vast majority of those who are unhappy about it have said is that Saints should have done the right thing and gifted a try to Hull considering the circumstances. It is not bl00dy rocket science.

The laws don't actually say racial abuse is an offence but somebody just got a 10 match ban for it. Why? because it is covered by the Misconduct law (f) uses offensive or obscene language.

 

 

 

No it couldn't....i'm presuming you must be very high up within the game to be able to call him an idiot and overule his knowledge, if not kindly refrain from abusing one of our match officials online - i'm sure that will also come under misconduct.

You've also contradicted yourself with regards to the bottom bit, the bit where you've said yourself it's covered by a law, playing on is not and never will be misconduct or against any law within the game.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

There are dropped balls and there is what happened in front of Fages. Is it really the case that no Saints fan can see that he should have stopped? It isn’t a surprise but it’s a shame if that’s the case. The idea that it was within the rules and so nothing else should be taken into account, and even, in some cases seemingly that he did the right thing, would be astonishing if it weren’t sadly predictable. 

But you are mixing up two points.

Whether he should have stopped or not is one point but the post you quoted is saying that he shouldn't have been penalised for playing on. That is very different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Josef K said:

It’s far worse than that JohnM, the game should’ve been postponed. The man of the match trophy at Wembley should be renamed The Griffin trophy. 

The game salutes the sacrifice that Saints are prepared to make, but really, there is no need to go that far. Expulsion from the Cup will suffice. 

  • Haha 1

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...