Jump to content

Grand Final Refereeing Against Saints


Recommended Posts

In the first 5 minutes of the Grand Final on Saturday, McIlorum tripped Makinson pretty clearly

1065143279_mcilorum(3).PNG.0fa757aeb5ed07334d94dbb39d0da22a.PNG

Obviously McIlorum is one of Catalan's key players and Saints went on to dominate that period territory-wise. Is anyone very concerned about the referee missing a deliberate act of foul play? A card here would have had a profound impact on the rest of the game. Between this, failing to card several high tackles by Catalan and imagining a knock on by Walsmley, there were several times where Saints were materially disadvantaged by the refereeing.

Some people may argue that there were several things missed for either team, that the referees are ultimately human and therefore make mistakes, that these things typically cancel out and that the better team won. 

However, I'm not interested in their views, so does anyone else think that Saints would have been very comfortable winners if not for the refereeing? Would it be fair enough for McManus to refuse to play any more finals under English referees?

Edited by Saint 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 8
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


52 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

In the first 5 minutes of the Grand Final on Saturday, McIlorum tripped Makinson pretty clearly

1065143279_mcilorum(3).PNG.0fa757aeb5ed07334d94dbb39d0da22a.PNG

Obviously McIlorum is one of Catalan's key players and Saints went on to dominate that period territory-wise. Is anyone very concerned about the referee missing a deliberate act of foul play? A card here would have had a profound impact on the rest of the game. Between this, failing to card several high tackles by Catalan and imagining a knock on by Walsmley, there were several times where Saints were materially disadvantaged by the refereeing.

Some people may argue that there were several things missed for either team, that the referees are ultimately human and therefore make mistakes, that these things typically cancel out and that the better team won. 

However, I'm not interested in their views, so does anyone else think that Saints would have been very comfortable winners if not for the refereeing? Would it be fair enough for McManus to refuse to play any more finals under English referees?

Thankfully McManus us a very classy bloke and would never lower himself to behave like that, so we are all good 😆

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

In the first 5 minutes of the Grand Final on Saturday, McIlorum tripped Makinson pretty clearly

1065143279_mcilorum(3).PNG.0fa757aeb5ed07334d94dbb39d0da22a.PNG

Obviously McIlorum is one of Catalan's key players and Saints went on to dominate that period territory-wise. Is anyone very concerned about the referee missing a deliberate act of foul play? A card here would have had a profound impact on the rest of the game. Between this, failing to card several high tackles by Catalan and imagining a knock on by Walsmley, there were several times where Saints were materially disadvantaged by the refereeing.

Some people may argue that there were several things missed for either team, that the referees are ultimately human and therefore make mistakes, that these things typically cancel out and that the better team won. 

However, I'm not interested in their views, so does anyone else think that Saints would have been very comfortable winners if not for the refereeing? Would it be fair enough for McManus to refuse to play any more finals under English referees?

As a Saints fan, I though the officiating was fine.

People are always hyper-critical after the Grand Final and typically wrong in those critiques.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, this is a bold take...

I mean, Matau'tia should've been sent off for a punch, that Coote pat back in from the penalty kick to touch was a joke and the decision to penalise Tomkins at the end was interesting.

But please, do go on about how Saints didn't get a fair shake.

Nevermind, just re-read the OP. Missed the tongue-in-cheek final paragraph. My bad.

Edited by Dunedan
I did a booboo
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, M j M said:

I don't think the anyone associated with the St Helens club is in a position to criticise anyone else for over-reactions to refereeing decisions.

Ha ha ha - absolutely brilliant. 
Mr Mcmoanusalotus !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

In the first 5 minutes of the Grand Final on Saturday, McIlorum tripped Makinson pretty clearly

1065143279_mcilorum(3).PNG.0fa757aeb5ed07334d94dbb39d0da22a.PNG

Obviously McIlorum is one of Catalan's key players and Saints went on to dominate that period territory-wise. Is anyone very concerned about the referee missing a deliberate act of foul play? A card here would have had a profound impact on the rest of the game. Between this, failing to card several high tackles by Catalan and imagining a knock on by Walsmley, there were several times where Saints were materially disadvantaged by the refereeing.

Some people may argue that there were several things missed for either team, that the referees are ultimately human and therefore make mistakes, that these things typically cancel out and that the better team won. 

However, I'm not interested in their views, so does anyone else think that Saints would have been very comfortable winners if not for the refereeing? Would it be fair enough for McManus to refuse to play any more finals under English referees?

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you. 

Wibble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

In the first 5 minutes of the Grand Final on Saturday, McIlorum tripped Makinson pretty clearly

1065143279_mcilorum(3).PNG.0fa757aeb5ed07334d94dbb39d0da22a.PNG

Obviously McIlorum is one of Catalan's key players and Saints went on to dominate that period territory-wise. Is anyone very concerned about the referee missing a deliberate act of foul play? A card here would have had a profound impact on the rest of the game. Between this, failing to card several high tackles by Catalan and imagining a knock on by Walsmley, there were several times where Saints were materially disadvantaged by the refereeing.

Some people may argue that there were several things missed for either team, that the referees are ultimately human and therefore make mistakes, that these things typically cancel out and that the better team won. 

However, I'm not interested in their views, so does anyone else think that Saints would have been very comfortable winners if not for the refereeing? Would it be fair enough for McManus to refuse to play any more finals under English referees?

"does anyone else think that Saints would have been very comfortable winners if not for the referee"

No.

  • Like 1

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

In the first 5 minutes of the Grand Final on Saturday, McIlorum tripped Makinson pretty clearly

1065143279_mcilorum(3).PNG.0fa757aeb5ed07334d94dbb39d0da22a.PNG

Obviously McIlorum is one of Catalan's key players and Saints went on to dominate that period territory-wise. Is anyone very concerned about the referee missing a deliberate act of foul play? A card here would have had a profound impact on the rest of the game. Between this, failing to card several high tackles by Catalan and imagining a knock on by Walsmley, there were several times where Saints were materially disadvantaged by the refereeing.

Some people may argue that there were several things missed for either team, that the referees are ultimately human and therefore make mistakes, that these things typically cancel out and that the better team won. 

However, I'm not interested in their views, so does anyone else think that Saints would have been very comfortable winners if not for the refereeing? Would it be fair enough for McManus to refuse to play any more finals under English referees?

In your text you state ‘I’m not interested in their views’.

Well matey after reading your post I certainly don’t give two hoots about your one-eyed view!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the trip was so weird, not mentioned by the commentators at all, ref and his assistants all missed it so I thought I had imagined it. Pretty poor that they all missed it when you can see on the replay it was so blatant.

On the knees thing, I doubt there was any intent in it, but it was a risky and clumsy thing to do that could have caused a lot of damage, and though I dont think it was deserving of an 8 point try I wouldnt have been surprised if it had been given as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being at the game I had a couple of moments where I had no idea what was going on due to confusing ref calls, but I didn't feel any bias toward on team or the other throughout. Its only afterwards watching it back on telly that 3 big calls all went against cats. If matautia punches someone he should be off, simple. The makinson penalty try could have gone either way but it went saints way, and the Tomkins head lock was a penalty to cats not saints. Them 3 calls where big calls and all went saints way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jack Russell said:

Being at the game I had a couple of moments where I had no idea what was going on due to confusing ref calls, but I didn't feel any bias toward on team or the other throughout. Its only afterwards watching it back on telly that 3 big calls all went against cats. If matautia punches someone he should be off, simple. The makinson penalty try could have gone either way but it went saints way, and the Tomkins head lock was a penalty to cats not saints. Them 3 calls where big calls and all went saints way.

There was no bias just a few missed calls which always happens. The TJ missed tap back in from the penalty is pretty unforgivable however. That is basically one of the main jobs they have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 13:01, Jack Russell said:

Being at the game I had a couple of moments where I had no idea what was going on due to confusing ref calls, but I didn't feel any bias toward on team or the other throughout. Its only afterwards watching it back on telly that 3 big calls all went against cats. If matautia punches someone he should be off, simple. The makinson penalty try could have gone either way but it went saints way, and the Tomkins head lock was a penalty to cats not saints. Them 3 calls where big calls and all went saints way.

I just don’t understand how the Yaha no try could be considered 50:50? Makinson makes initial contact on the shoulder and Yaha is already going to ground 5+m out - we have no idea if the initial contact was enough to cause Yaha to fall short, be pushed out anyway, let the cover defence come over etc. If he was over the line already, I could perhaps see it as a 50:50 (he might still have dropped it etc) but where it was? You will get no try and a penalty 100 times out of 100 (the thing which may vary is the card). It’s quite funny really because no one made any mention of Saints not getting a penalty try in MW when Joe Batchelor was shoulder charged by Maloney in the act of scoring which meant he dropped the ball, which was far more 50:50 in my opinion.

The Tomkins decision was just right. There’s not much more to say really. The refs have been penalising players all year for flopping to the ground after playing the ball and there was nothing special or different about this one other than there were 2 minutes left in the grand final. It would be more interesting if he hadn’t have played the ball as he would probably have gotten back to 6, but since he did, it was the right decision.

If your sending Mata’utia off, your also sending Maloney off for the initial elbow which caused the shuffle, but that’s old ground at this point. 
 

Absolutely agree the Coote pat back was wrong - fortunately no big moment came from it.

Also if the game was reffed to the standards the semi final was vs Leeds, then both Kasiano and Garcia would have been sin binned for their respective high shots on on Roby and Lomax. And there was a more than strong argument for an 8 point try for Saints with Yaha going in knees first on Naiqamas head to stop the try. But they’re swings and roundabouts and all of them even out over the course of the game, because as you say, there was no bias in the reffing.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

Where on earth has this ludicrous concept that we need to split the illegal tackle into a legal bit and an illegal bit come from? 

You don’t assess a penalty try as “would Yaha have scored if Makinson wasn’t there” but as “if Makinson hadn’t made contact with the head, would Yaha have scored”.

the first part of the contact was perfectly legal. So the what if conversation starts from the contact with the head, at which point Yaha has 5m out, falling to his knees and moving towards the side line and for a penalty try to be given that from that moment onwards he would definitely have scored. That’s not ludicrous that’s how the rules work…

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 13:01, Jack Russell said:

Being at the game I had a couple of moments where I had no idea what was going on due to confusing ref calls, but I didn't feel any bias toward on team or the other throughout. Its only afterwards watching it back on telly that 3 big calls all went against cats. If matautia punches someone he should be off, simple. The makinson penalty try could have gone either way but it went saints way, and the Tomkins head lock was a penalty to cats not saints. Them 3 calls where big calls and all went saints way.

First 2 yes, third one no as he played for it and even if he didnt it looked like he did and hes got previous so what goes round etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

You don’t assess a penalty try as “would Yaha have scored if Makinson wasn’t there” but as “if Makinson hadn’t made contact with the head, would Yaha have scored”.

the first part of the contact was perfectly legal. So the what if conversation starts from the contact with the head, at which point Yaha has 5m out, falling to his knees and moving towards the side line and for a penalty try to be given that from that moment onwards he would definitely have scored. That’s not ludicrous that’s how the rules work…

It is quite ridiculous, the intial hit didnt push him into touch it was the hook around his neck that did.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

You don’t assess a penalty try as “would Yaha have scored if Makinson wasn’t there” but as “if Makinson hadn’t made contact with the head, would Yaha have scored”.

the first part of the contact was perfectly legal. So the what if conversation starts from the contact with the head, at which point Yaha has 5m out, falling to his knees and moving towards the side line and for a penalty try to be given that from that moment onwards he would definitely have scored. That’s not ludicrous that’s how the rules work…

I don't think the laws of the game support your thinking at all.

Under the section on misconduct:

Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

The key part here is "when effecting a tackle".  So quite clearly, the tackle is deemed to be misconduct if contact is made with the head.  Not the high contact of itself but the actual tackle from which the contact occurred.

There is no denying that Makinson made contact with the head while effecting the tackle as he was penalised and sent to the sin bin.

Then on the penalty try section

Penalty try (d) the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred.

So, if the tackle is deemed to be misconduct because Makinson made contact with Yaha's head when effecting it, the decision is would a try have been scored had Makinson not effected that tackle.  Not just if he hadn't made contact with the head but if if the foul tackle had not occurred at all - because the tackle was the foul, not just the part where he made contact with the head.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...