Sun 8 Aug: SL: Leigh Centurions v Hull Kingston Rovers 18:30 (TV)

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Because you agree, did you agree with Charnley's try last week, if not why? The VR said it was OK.

It’s not a matter of whether I agree or not although again if you watch as a neutral most decisions are correct.

I didn’t think Charnley’s was a try but under the current protocols, as agreed with the clubs & coaches, the decision could not be overturned. I posted that a number of times

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

So offside players being within 10m of the ball is no longer an offside after the ball has been touched, if so why was hoods chalked off?

Hood was offside and interfering with play. The Hull KR one was not involved in the play. Its an interpretation of the rule and its the same for the "downtown" kicks or when a ref is coaching a player telling him he is offside but does not give a penalty.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Same as to Lee above, so when you agree with the VR it is OK, but not when you disagree?

Don't get the question to be honest. 

[phiggins]

21 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Hood was offside and interfering with play. The Hull KR one was not involved in the play. Its an interpretation of the rule and its the same for the "downtown" kicks or when a ref is coaching a player telling him he is offside but does not give a penalty.

Is ‘interfering with play’ a thing now? I thought if you were offside, you had to stay 10 metres away regardless of whether you were interfering? 

[sweaty craiq]

17 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Is ‘interfering with play’ a thing now? I thought if you were offside, you had to stay 10 metres away regardless of whether you were interfering? 

That’s the rule but that is irrelevant when Leigh are the team on the wrong end. Crooks was on the player who knocked on wasn’t, same for Leigh’s disallowed try Challenger on but Hood off.

[dkw]

34 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Is ‘interfering with play’ a thing now? I thought if you were offside, you had to stay 10 metres away regardless of whether you were interfering? 

I thought it had changed this season, I'm sure there was a game a few weeks ago where the sake thing happened and the commentator said a player not involved is ok now.

[phiggins]

Just now, dkw said:

I thought it had changed this season, I'm sure there was a game a few weeks ago where the sake thing happened and the commentator said a player not involved is ok now.

Thanks. To be honest, I’ve given up trying to keep up to date on the rule changes each season, so I’ll never be in a position to question a ref’s decision really. 

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

Don't think it was a knock on, but not so sure if the player was onside, or if he'd got within 10 of the full back.

Either way, it wouldn't have mattered, as I think they would've scored again anyway if they needed to. Leigh's defence is worse than anything I've seen from a professional side. Poor line speed and awful technique. It's as if they are having poor habits coached into them, which makes the inability to replace Duffy as coach pretty galling.

Difficult to get a coherent defence when there's 5/6/7 changes of personnel every week 

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

They, especially the VR, couldn’t have called it any other way as the ball clearly did not go forwards. It was a clear cut decision

Correct it didn't go forwards , neither did it go backwards , it went down , normally when it goes down , it's a knock on in 90% of cases , in fact if you look at his ' pass ' , straight afterwards that did go forwards onto the floor 

But hey ho , as I put it got Mr Kendal out of Mr Smith's firing line , basically unless we properly put somebody to the sword , we ain't winning a close game this year 

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, LeeF said:

 

That's why you aren't reffing any more Ian ,

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, sentoffagain2 said:

I thought as he picked up the ball it went down  neither forward or backwards,so it was a 50/50 call Not seen it slowed down but it would have been very difficult for the Ref or Linesman to see at speed.The Leigh players were nearer and rightly challenged the call.A few mistakes but i enjoyed the game.Leigh always try to play open Rugby.

Correct , it went down , 90% of the time ' down ' is called a knock on , unfortunately we get the 10% 

[phiggins]

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Difficult to get a coherent defence when there's 5/6/7 changes of personnel every week 

Not sure that excuses the performance level of our defence. The individual tackling technique is woeful. Last night I saw Thompson jump on somebody's back as if he was asking for a piggy back, and grab an opponent's non-ball carrying arm. And it happens throughout the team, early in sets when trying to defend a bog standard drive up the middle.

It's no wonder we get so easily dominated, and the fact it hasn't improved at all 15 games in suggests that the coaching staff aren't up to it.

[Liverpool Rover]

The only thing that saved a knock on was probably that Linnett was turning his back to Leighs goal line, although I wouldn’t be surprised that Kendall would have given a Knock on if he was the VR.

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Not sure that excuses the performance level of our defence. The individual tackling technique is woeful. Last night I saw Thompson jump on somebody's back as if he was asking for a piggy back, and grab an opponent's non-ball carrying arm. And it happens throughout the team, early in sets when trying to defend a bog standard drive up the middle.

It's no wonder we get so easily dominated, and the fact it hasn't improved at all 15 games in suggests that the coaching staff aren't up to it.

Always easier to tackle from the terracing I've found

So far this season we've been the smallest forward line in every game , this was so last night , we keep getting steamrolled , quite often when we try to slow them down we get ' pinged ' with a reset , be interesting to see how many players we have used this year already 

[sweaty craiq]

This is the law, apparently:

To be onside at a kick, an active player not in possession of the ball, must be behind the player who kicks the ball.

If you are in front of the kicker, make sure you don't get involved with open play.

You can do this by raising your arms and running back to an onside position.

This shows the referee you have no intention of joining play because you know you're offside.

However, if you make no attempt to move back to an onside position as play continues, the referee will award a penalty to the opposition.''

My understanding is that the players to the kickers right moved forward and were within the 10m when Crooks knocked it back (he was onside), still in front of the kicker.

As they say its chip paper tonight but I understand the Hood try was disallowed as he was in front of the kicker although the KR player knocked it back to him

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

I don’t know what’s been more enjoyable. Showing resilience to beat the small town club with its oddly needy, tiny fanbase in tricky circumstances? Or watching their advocates drive themselves mad unpicking decisions in a match they still contrived to lose gainst a side with most of its spine missing, 15 fit players by the end and where the referee did his level best to walk them to the win with random, one-sided sin-bin calls so you could have a shot against 11 men.
 

On balance, the latter

[LeytherRob]

6 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I don’t know what’s been more enjoyable. Showing resilience to beat the small town club with its oddly needy, tiny fanbase in tricky circumstances? Or watching their advocates drive themselves mad unpicking decisions in a match they still contrived to lose gainst a side with most of its spine missing, 15 fit players by the end and where the referee did his level best to walk them to the win with random, one-sided sin-bin calls so you could have a shot against 11 men.
 

On balance, the latter

A fitting comment from a fan base that threw a smoke bomb on the pitch interrupting their own conversion. Stay classy.

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I don’t know what’s been more enjoyable. Showing resilience to beat the small town club with its oddly needy, tiny fanbase in tricky circumstances? Or watching their advocates drive themselves mad unpicking decisions in a match they still contrived to lose gainst a side with most of its spine missing, 15 fit players by the end and where the referee did his level best to walk them to the win with random, one-sided sin-bin calls so you could have a shot against 11 men.
 

On balance, the latter

Dirty Rovers

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

A fitting comment from a fan base that threw a smoke bomb on the pitch interrupting their own conversion. Stay classy.

Stupid Rovers

[DimmestStar]

Albert Vete Hull KR Super League 08th August 2021 No charge ON 968/21
George Lawler Hull KR Super League 08th August 2021 No charge ON 971/21

Seems that the disciplinary panel disagreed with the yellow cards.

[GUBRATS]

43 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

Albert Vete Hull KR Super League 08th August 2021 No charge ON 968/21
George Lawler Hull KR Super League 08th August 2021 No charge ON 971/21

Seems that the disciplinary panel disagreed with the yellow cards.

Or they thought them sufficient penalties

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I don’t know what’s been more enjoyable. Showing resilience to beat the small town club with its oddly needy, tiny fanbase in tricky circumstances? Or watching their advocates drive themselves mad unpicking decisions in a match they still contrived to lose gainst a side with most of its spine missing, 15 fit players by the end and where the referee did his level best to walk them to the win with random, one-sided sin-bin calls so you could have a shot against 11 men.
 

On balance, the latter

You gotta love the new HKR fans who forget they couldn’t draw 1500 in early 2000’s, yet they have all been lifelongers

[dkw]

2 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

Albert Vete Hull KR Super League 08th August 2021 No charge ON 968/21
George Lawler Hull KR Super League 08th August 2021 No charge ON 971/21

Seems that the disciplinary panel disagreed with the yellow cards.

And rightly so, it was barely even worth a penalty let alone a sin bin.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

5 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

You gotta love the new HKR fans who forget they couldn’t draw 1500 in early 2000’s, yet they have all been lifelongers

Do me a favour. 1982 onwards. Kept my season ticket when I lived in Sydney. Buy 2 now and donate one via the club to someone random who can’t. I’m happy with my loyalty, and Rovers crowds have always held up pretty well for their circumstances… certainly above Leigh and plenty of other peers.
 

We got one chance to get into SL and re-build, after a decade of exclusion, and we took it. Others haven’t. 

 

 

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Or they thought them sufficient penalties

The comments on Vete basically say it wasn’t a sin-bin - shoulder-on-shoulder followed by accidental contact