Jump to content

Grand Final Refereeing Against Saints


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

You know definitively from this position that if Makinson doesn’t touch his head Yaha is going to score? Really?

BEAD1C0B-1E29-48DB-A804-8E9EB3D9D19E.jpeg

Largely irrelevant. He didn’t hit him legally so lost the right to be there, penalty try all day long

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


10 hours ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

You know definitively from this position that if Makinson doesn’t touch his head Yaha is going to score? Really?

BEAD1C0B-1E29-48DB-A804-8E9EB3D9D19E.jpeg

 

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

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.

I agree with Dunbar on this.

But, for the avoidance of allegations of bias I'll argue it like the Magic Superbeetle has done.

Makinson's momentum (mass x velocity) was sufficient to propel Yaha into touch.

In order to do that he needs to stay in contact with Yaha until he's out of play because the initial contact was insufficient.

If Makinson's shoulder had stayed in contact with Yaha's elbow/upper arm, he would have prevented a try but it didn't. 

Makinson's shoulder slid upwards and only his bent/crooked arm remained in contact with Yaha's head forcing his head first and then (dragging) the rest of his body, over the touch-line.

If you watch the tackle again, you will see that the time in legal contact with Yaha was a small fraction of the total time in contact and the much greater fraction (which propelled him over the touch line) was in contact with the head.

So let's not ask, what would have happened if Makinson hadn't been there (which makes the whole discussion pointless) but what would have happened if Yaha was headless?

In that case, Makinson would have flown over the top (and ended up in the stands) and Yaha would have won the GF for Catalans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

 

I agree with Dunbar on this.

But, for the avoidance of allegations of bias I'll argue it like the Magic Superbeetle has done.

Makinson's momentum (mass x velocity) was sufficient to propel Yaha into touch.

In order to do that he needs to stay in contact with Yaha until he's out of play because the initial contact was insufficient.

If Makinson's shoulder had stayed in contact with Yaha's elbow/upper arm, he would have prevented a try but it didn't. 

Makinson's shoulder slid upwards and only his bent/crooked arm remained in contact with Yaha's head forcing his head first and then (dragging) the rest of his body, over the touch-line.

If you watch the tackle again, you will see that the time in legal contact with Yaha was a small fraction of the total time in contact and the much greater fraction (which propelled him over the touch line) was in contact with the head.

So let's not ask, what would have happened if Makinson hadn't been there (which makes the whole discussion pointless) but what would have happened if Yaha was headless?

In that case, Makinson would have flown over the top (and ended up in the stands) and Yaha would have won the GF for Catalans. 

Except if Yaha was headless, the body was still angled towards the sideline and falling to his knees. Naiqama (cropped from the picture due to size limitations) is around 10m away, and your effectively betting that Yaha has enough momentum to stop himself going towards the sideline, and regain his feet to get to the line before Makinson recovers/ Naiqama joins the tackle. I just cant see how anyone can say that definitively, except wanting the underdog to win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

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.

I think the rules agree with the my argument and stance taken by the referees entirely?

Firstly, you can have multiple attempts to effect a tackle. Hence each action in a sequence should be taken as that; a sequence. The first attempted effected tackle hits the shoulder, causes Yaha to be falling to his knees. The second sequence is then the arm making contact to the head. Unless your arguing that Makinsons tackle was one continuous motion where contact was always going to be made with the head? 

The rules don't just expect Makinson to disappear, else virtually every piece of unfair play 1:1 would be presented as a penalty try. It precisely asks the question; if the defending team did anything else other than the unfair play (high tackle in this instance) would a try have been scored?

As I say, if Yaha had already been over the line, theres far more of an argument/ 50:50 on this, but we just cant definitively say what would have happened.

Interestingly, I have to ask, do you think Saints should have gotten a penalty try for Maloneys shoulder charge on Batchelor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

I think the rules agree with the my argument and stance taken by the referees entirely?

Firstly, you can have multiple attempts to effect a tackle. Hence each action in a sequence should be taken as that; a sequence. The first attempted effected tackle hits the shoulder, causes Yaha to be falling to his knees. The second sequence is then the arm making contact to the head. Unless your arguing that Makinsons tackle was one continuous motion where contact was always going to be made with the head? 

The rules don't just expect Makinson to disappear, else virtually every piece of unfair play 1:1 would be presented as a penalty try. It precisely asks the question; if the defending team did anything else other than the unfair play (high tackle in this instance) would a try have been scored?

As I say, if Yaha had already been over the line, theres far more of an argument/ 50:50 on this, but we just cant definitively say what would have happened.

Interestingly, I have to ask, do you think Saints should have gotten a penalty try for Maloneys shoulder charge on Batchelor?

So, picking up on your points individually.

Firstly, I simply cannot agree with your view that the tackle from Makinson was two parts in a sequence.  He didn't have multiple attempts to make the tackle, he had one.  That may be a valid interpretation if Makinson had made contact, fallen off the tackle and then subsequently contacted Yaha again.  But the whole tackle was one sequence and it was a foul.  I am indeed arguing that the tackle was one continuous motion.  Because it was.

I am surprised you typed in the second paragraph as that is entirely my argument.  If the unfair tackle had not been made would the try have been scored.  In my view yes, the try would have been scored if it were not for this foul tackle (in its entirety as a single tackle).

I cannot comment on the Maloney incident as I do not remember it clearly (as I have said in a previous thread, I have subsequently reviewed the Makinson/Yaha incident on Sky Plus to form a view).  I will do the same on the Maloney one... can you remind me roughly the time in the game that it occurred.  I will take a look and let you know my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

So, picking up on your points individually.

Firstly, I simply cannot agree with your view that the tackle from Makinson was two parts in a sequence.  He didn't have multiple attempts to make the tackle, he had one.  That may be a valid interpretation if Makinson had made contact, fallen off the tackle and then subsequently contacted Yaha again.  But the whole tackle was one sequence and it was a foul.  I am indeed arguing that the tackle was one continuous motion.  Because it was.

I am surprised you typed in the second paragraph as that is entirely my argument.  If the unfair tackle had not been made would the try have been scored.  In my view yes, the try would have been scored if it were not for this foul tackle (in its entirety as a single tackle).

I cannot comment on the Maloney incident as I do not remember it clearly (as I have said in a previous thread, I have subsequently reviewed the Makinson/Yaha incident on Sky Plus to form a view).  I will do the same on the Maloney one... can you remind me roughly the time in the game that it occurred.  I will take a look and let you know my thoughts.

All well and good but the fact is Penalty try's are rarely awarded even when the player is already over the try line before the foul play takes place. I can't remember the last time a penalty try was given for contact 5 yards out from the try line and in such close proximity to the touchline, maybe someone on here can allude to any examples of this. I'm not saying I agree it is just a fact, so they were never going to give  a penalty try in the Grand Final in these circumstances. At least Moore referred it and asked for the video refs view on the merits of a penalty try.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything this thread proves entirely why it wasnt given, it was a 50/50 decision and down to one persons opinion and he decided on the evidence provided it wasnt worth of a penalty try as he couldnt conclusively say if the try would have been scored or not.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, hullste said:

I can't remember the last time a penalty try was given for contact 5 yards out from the try line and in such close proximity to the touchline, maybe someone on here can allude to any examples of this. I'm not saying I agree it is just a fact, so they were never going to give  a penalty try in the Grand Final in these circumstances. At least Moore referred it and asked for the video refs view on the merits of a penalty try.

2008 World Cup final. Video ref none other than the current head of RFL referees. Much less clear cut than Saturday's example.

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

15 minutes ago, M j M said:

2008 World Cup final. Video ref none other than the current head of RFL referees. Much less clear cut than Saturday's example.

Much less clear cut 😆

You can't actually believe that.  Hohaia was actually stood on the try line when he was tackled without the ball!  And even all the Oz commentators in that game were saying "that has to be a penalty try".

Edited by FearTheVee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

Except if Yaha was headless, the body was still angled towards the sideline and falling to his knees. Naiqama (cropped from the picture due to size limitations) is around 10m away, and your effectively betting that Yaha has enough momentum to stop himself going towards the sideline, and regain his feet to get to the line before Makinson recovers/ Naiqama joins the tackle. I just cant see how anyone can say that definitively, except wanting the underdog to win. 

The contact with the shoulder was extremely fleeting (I've already made this point). You are betting, that that was enough to push Yaha into touch. You just can't say that definitively, but that you make the claim, belies your feigned neutrality.

At the time Makinson slipped over his shoulder, Yaha's upper body, hips and legs were not deflected from their (try scoring) path.

It was the latter part, (the illegal part) of the contact, (much longer lasting) which provided the impulse to pull Yaha into touch.

I'm not betting, but I am confidently asserting that Yaha had enough momentum (if not for the head shot) to get to the line (long before Naiqama got there) without, as you insist, having to regain his feet and running on.

He would simply have slid over the line unencumbered.

By the way, not that it's critical to your argument, but to suggest that Makinson could have ''recovered'' and stopped Yaha is, quite frankly, risible.

Lastly, I don't accept that Catalans, were the underdogs. You are asserting that they were underdogs not me. I'm neutral.

I just want the name of the worthy winners on the trophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FearTheVee said:

Much less clear cut 😆

You can't actually believe that.  Hohaia was actually stood on the try line when he was tackled without the ball!  And even all the Oz commentators in that game were saying "that has to be a penalty try".

I was very happy with that try being given, I was sat about 30m surrounded by Aussies - but it was not that clear cut - Slater was right there in contention for the ball. But imho it was exactly the right decision - if foul play even stops the opportunity of a try, the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker. It certainly did in 2008, it didn't last week.

Also, people need to stop using words like 'definitely' or '100%' or 'guaranteed' when it comes to awarding a penalty try - that isn't a requirement. The international laws says:

The Referee may award a penalty try if, in their opinion, or that of the video referee, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team

For me this is why I disagree with @dkw's rationale that it is right it was disallowed because people differ in their opinions - but that isn't a reason to disallow, as there is no requirement for beyond reasonable doubt or anything. It simply has to be in the ref's opinion, pretty much like any other decision tbh.

The reason it wasn't given is because the VR didn't think Yaha would score (we need to live with that, that's life) - there is no official right or wrong here, it is all opinion - but Makinson made one tackle - an illegal one, those trying to make out this was 2 tackles are way off.

It is one of the very few areas where I think RU does better than us. They don't spend ages trying to work out why it isn't a try - they are pretty comfortable giving it. Just as we were in that 2008 final.

Edited by Dave T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dkw said:

If anything this thread proves entirely why it wasnt given, it was a 50/50 decision and down to one persons opinion and he decided on the evidence provided it wasnt worth of a penalty try as he couldnt conclusively say if the try would have been scored or not.

See my earlier post - there is no requirement for it to be conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

See my earlier post - there is no requirement for it to be conclusive.

But surely there has to be for the ref making the decision, he cant give a penalty try on the benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, dkw said:

But surely there has to be for the ref making the decision, he cant give a penalty try on the benefit of the doubt.

Of course - but there is no requirement for it to be conclusive or 100% certain - terminology like that has got us into a bit of a mess with the current VR system, where we see bad decisions given because a VR can't 100% say that he should overturn the ref, despite all probability showing the ref as wrong (in general not this specific call).

I think we often set the bar too high for penalty tries. 

But ultimately, my view is that Yaha had hold of the ball, was 4m from the line and heading for the corner. The thing that stopped him was an illegal tackle. I don't think we need to overthink it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dkw said:

But surely there has to be for the ref making the decision, he cant give a penalty try on the benefit of the doubt.

It is impossible for anything to be conclusive if what you are making a decision on is an alternative set of future events after an incident.

It has to be judged on balance of probability in the view of the ref.  And if the probability is that a try would have been scored (even 51/49) then a try should be awarded. 

Clearly the ref didn't think this in this instance but we can have our opinions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

You know definitively from this position that if Makinson doesn’t touch his head Yaha is going to score? Really?

BEAD1C0B-1E29-48DB-A804-8E9EB3D9D19E.jpeg

From that position he was always going to hit his head so dont get your point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will cut to the chase.

On the one and only time the RFL and its referees should have acted by its own rules and professionally, they balls it up.

By Monday morning, Saints win was tucked in between another town centre assault and what to do with some derelict land in the local newspaper.

Just another notch on the bed in an endless list.

Imagine if the correct decision of a penalty try had been given?

How victory would had been celebrated in Perpignan.  How the movers and shakers would have took notice of little RL in France, How legends would have had been made.

They didn't even have an open top bus parade in St Helens.

They, Leeds and Wigan are bored.

Possibly after winning so often in a rigged system, only losing generates emotion.

 

Edited by idrewthehaggis
  • Like 3
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

I will cut to the chase.

On the one and only time the RFL and its referees should have acted by its own rules and professionally, they balls it up.

By Monday morning, Saints win was tucked in between another town centre assault and what to do with some derelict land in the local newspaper.

Just another notch on the bed in an endless list.

Imagine if the correct decision of a penalty try had been given?

How victory would had been celebrated in Perpignan.  How the movers and shakers would have took notice of little RL in France, How legends would have had been made.

They didn't even have an open top bus parade in St Helens.

They, Leeds and Wigan are bored.

Possibly after winning so often in a rigged system, only losing generates emotion.

 

This is a pretty embarrassing post.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

On the one and only time the RFL and its referees should have acted by its own rules and professionally, they balls it up.

 

Except it wasn't the only time in that game there were contentious decisions to be made, and when you take your 'anti-Saints' specs off you'll see those decisions were pretty evenly split between both clubs.

The Yaha penalty try, the Coote foot in touch, the Tomkins PTB were 3 prominent ones that went in Saints favour. But conversley the Yaha knees in Naiquama's head incident, the McIlorum trip, the Garcia high shot & McMeekan high shot (both direct head contact shots) are ones that all went in Catalans favour. Given what we've see happen over the course of the year Catalans could easily have had 4 players in the sin-bin over the course of that game and Saints been awarded an 8 point try. Both Mata'utia & Maloney could also have found themselves in the bin for their incident early on, Maloney for the deliberate elbow to the throat and Mata'utia for the punch retaliation.

You (and several others on here) are all trying to make out like Catalans were somehow 'robbed' of GF victory by Yaha not being awarded a penalty try when that clearly wasn't the case. They didn't get the benefit of the call in that instance, but certainly did in several others. Rightly or wrongly the calls evened themselves up across that game so no team suffered more from contentious 50:50 calls than the other.

  • Haha 4

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

If the ref did see the trip, which I missed and only seen on a still, what would the correct decision be? 

May just have been a penalty 

A deliberate trip is a yellow card offence (its not that many years ago it was still a red card offence). McIlorum was very lucky it was missed by the officials at the time.

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

If the ref did see the trip, which I missed and only seen on a still, what would the correct decision be? 

May just have been a penalty 

Its a sin binning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

A deliberate trip is a yellow card offence (its not that many years ago it was still a red card offence). McIlorum was very lucky it was missed by the officials at the time.

 

19 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its a sin binning.

The approach to yellow and red offences and the disciplinary impact is all a bit jumbled imho. 

We saw two bans from the Grand Final - both offences missed, but that surely suggests they are bad enough for at least a yellow card, maybe red. If they are minor incidents worthy of a yellow then surely they are not worthy of a ban. 

And if offences that get yellows are worthy of bans, why didn't Makinson get banned? 

It's all a bit inconsistent imo and I don't think there is much excuse for games with a VR missing foul play that is worthy of a ban. 

I think we should be bolder with the on-field disciplinary around foul play - is still find it absolutely bizarre that the charade that is the on-report system is still a thing, when I'm fact it really isn't anything. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

This is a pretty embarrassing post.

Don't be embarrassed.

 

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...