Jump to content

Grand Final Refereeing Against Saints


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

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.

Weren't those high tackles penalised? 

But you are right, other fans and club officials should take the lead on pragmatism from the wonderful St Helens club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


36 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

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.

You should take your rose (and white) coloured specs off Saint.

You forgot to mention LMS veering to his right in order to deliberately hit Tompkins legs while he was off the ground.

Or are you claiming that was an accident? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours 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.

 

Boo hoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

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. 

Its an unfair part of the rules isnt it, if its seen during the game then its 10 minutes for the trip (rightly in my opinion) that then gives an advantage to the team fouled against, but the other team are only down a man for 10 minutes. Now though Catalans lose a player for a full game, and saints gain no advantage from that at all.

Also, if the panel deem the trip to be ban worthy then what happens to the officials team that missed it? Ok if the ref misses it, he cant see everything but then the other 2 on field officials have also missed it, along with the VR (though I`m not sure if he can even intervene on these kind of things i fairness)

I also cant stand the rule where if the ref is seen to have acted and punished a player during the game then the incident cant be reviewed after the game, its such a weird thing.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Weren't those high tackles penalised? 

 

But no cards, unlike the previous week against Leeds were yellow cards were handed out for the same offence of direct contact with the head.

The whole point I was trying to make was there are inconsistencies from week to week and game to game depending on the individual official. The decision may go in your favour 1 week and against you the next. With a different official Catalans could have had 4 in the bin and Saints been awarded an 8 point try, just as Catalans could have got a penalty try, or Tomkins could have been awarded a penalty to him instead of against him.

You'd think from reading this thread (or listening to Gauche) that every contentious decision went against Catalans and that cost them GF success. When the reality is there were numerous contentious decisions all of which could have had different outcomes with a different official and that these decisions were fairly evenly split going either way between both teams. Roughly half of them went in Saints favour and half in Catalans favour.

Edited by Saint Toppy
  • 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

5 hours ago, fighting irish said:

You should take your rose (and white) coloured specs off Saint.

You forgot to mention LMS veering to his right in order to deliberately hit Tompkins legs while he was off the ground.

Or are you claiming that was an accident? 

How is the post 'rose tinted' when I clearly pointed out decisions that went for and against both teams in that match some that went in Saints favour and a similar number that went in Catalans favour.

Catalans weren't good enough to score a single try against Saints with them having 13 players on the pitch, just like Leeds the week before, so rather than whinging they didn't get a penalty try, the stronger argument is they needed the officials help to get them over the try line by reducing Saints to 12 men.

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

45 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

But no cards, unlike the previous week against Leeds were yellow cards were handed out for the same offence of direct contact with the head.

The whole point I was trying to make was there are inconsistencies from week to week and game to game depending on the individual official. The decision may go in your favour 1 week and against you the next. With a different official Catalans could have had 4 in the bin and Saints been awarded an 8 point try, just as Catalans could have got a penalty try, or Tomkins could have been awarded a penalty to him instead of against him.

You'd think from reading this thread (or listening to Gauche) that every contentious decision went against Catalans and that cost them GF success. When the reality is there were numerous contentious decisions all of which could have had different outcomes with a different official and that these decisions were fairly evenly split going either way between both teams. Roughly half of them went in Saints favour and half in Catalans favour.

Like I say, I admire this attitude of these things balance out. It is one I share. 

But it is only one you believe in when Saints win, as your posting history proves. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Like I say, I admire this attitude of these things balance out. It is one I share. 

But it is only one you believe in when Saints win, as your posting history proves. 

In fairness thats no different to around 95% of fans of any team on here and out in the big bad world.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

How is the post 'rose tinted' when I clearly pointed out decisions that went for and against both teams in that match some that went in Saints favour and a similar number that went in Catalans favour.

Catalans weren't good enough to score a single try against Saints with them having 13 players on the pitch, just like Leeds the week before, so rather than whinging they didn't get a penalty try, the stronger argument is they needed the officials help to get them over the try line by reducing Saints to 12 men.

Please don't be offended, you had the temerity to accuse another poster of wearing anti-saints specs so with a wry smile, I was giving you a smidgen, of your own medicine.

It's laughable how many partisan fans in here consider themselves the only ''objective'' minds alive today, and everyone else as corrupt, foolish, bent, one-eyed, cross-eyed, drunk, or otherwise cognitively impaired.

Do you really believe yourself to be impartial? 

''O wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!.''

Now to the facts.

I just pointed out that you forget to mention that LMS deliberately hit a man while he was in the air (and should have had a yellow card for that too). Who knows what might have resulted, if he'd been ''in the bin, as well''? Banging on about the alternative outcomes of the other similar refereeing blunders may be classified as mere (and grossly unsubstantiated) speculation. Flights of fancy of that nature are hardly worth the time, unless of course you contrive to use them as a smoke screen for the real issue.

Surely you agree, that of all the regrettable errors, that took place that afternoon the ''Makinson/Yaha incident'' was the most significant, and the only one, where we can be reasonably certain, that the correct/alternative decision would have changed the result of the match?

 

Edited by fighting irish
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, dkw said:

In fairness thats no different to around 95% of fans of any team on here and out in the big bad world.

I disagree, very many fans move on after a defeat and don't mention the ref. I don't think I've ever blamed a ref for a Wire defeat.

Small noisy groups make a lot of noise about referee bias. Saint Toppy is quite an extreme example of being a very sore loser, so I am interested in what has shifted his mindset to be much more philosophical about referee decisions. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/10/2021 at 15:43, fighting irish said:

 

Surely you agree, that of all the regrettable errors, that took place that afternoon the ''Makinson/Yaha incident'' was the most significant, and the only one, where we can be reasonably certain, that the correct/alternative decision would have changed the result of the match?

 

Now who's being one-eyed if you think that 1 incident decided the result of the match 

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

46 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Now who's being one-eyed if you think that 1 incident decided the result of the match 

You've removed the context from my post and as a result, you've misrepresented what I said. So be it.

It's just another example of an embarrassed apologist Saints fan trying to deflect attention from the real issue. 

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

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

You've removed the context from my post and as a result, you've misrepresented what I said. So be it.

It's just another example of an embarrassed apologist Saints fan trying to deflect attention from the real issue. 

Seems to me the only 'issue' is you and several other 'anti-Saints' posters on here obsessing over a single incident, to the point where you've convinced yourself the opposition were 'robbed' of GF victory, instead of considering all of the potentially contentious decisions made throughout the match and actually realising both teams benefitted from those decisions, not just one of them.

 

Edited by Saint Toppy

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

On 15/10/2021 at 16:09, Dave T said:

I disagree, very many fans move on after a defeat and don't mention the ref. I don't think I've ever blamed a ref for a Wire defeat.

Small noisy groups make a lot of noise about referee bias. Saint Toppy is quite an extreme example of being a very sore loser, so I am interested in what has shifted his mindset to be much more philosophical about referee decisions. 

as a warrington fan, i find i tend to complain more about refs when we win.

 

If we lose, well, thats always warrington's fault

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Seems to me the only 'issue' is you and several other 'anti-Saints' posters on here obsessing over a single incident, to the point where you've convinced yourself the opposition were 'robbed' of GF victory, instead of considering all of the potentially contentious decisions made throughout the match and actually realising both teams benefitted from those decisions, not just one of them.

 

This from a fan of the club who publicly soiled their pants after one marginal call two minutes into a cup final 😄

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

5 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Seems to me the only 'issue' is you and several other 'anti-Saints' posters on here obsessing over a single incident, to the point where you've convinced yourself the opposition were 'robbed' of GF victory, instead of considering all of the potentially contentious decisions made throughout the match and actually realising both teams benefitted from those decisions, not just one of them.

 

What makes you think, I'm anti-Saints?

The topic under discussion was the Makinson/Yaha incident.

My comments were about only that incident and mainly about the mechanics of the impact.

I have the greatest admiration for your club and what they have achieved, crumbs my cousin signed for Saints (from WRU) when I was a kid.

Don't let your own paranoia cloud your view of my part in this discussion.

If you really care for the objective truth, go back and read my posts again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, fighting irish said:

What makes you think, I'm anti-Saints?

The topic under discussion was the Makinson/Yaha incident.

My comments were about only that incident and mainly about the mechanics of the impact.

I have the greatest admiration for your club and what they have achieved, crumbs my cousin signed for Saints (from WRU) when I was a kid.

Don't let your own paranoia cloud your view of my part in this discussion.

If you really care for the objective truth, go back and read my posts again.  

Your forgetting this entire thread was intended to discuss decisions that went against Saints, until it was conveniently hijacked by numerous 'anti-Saints' posters to turn it into yet another bleeding hearts thread for Catalans.

But if you want to bring it back to one specific incident in the Yaha no try / penalty try then your constant assertion that Yaha would have scored is completely fanciful and based on nothing more than your desire to have seen Catalans win.

Was Yaha already over the try line when the head shot occured or in the process of putting the ball down over the try line - No

Was the first point of contact legal - Yes

Did the first contact change Yaha's direction of travel & momentum towards the sideline - Yes

Based on the above there is absolutely no degree of certainty that Yaha would not have gone over the sideline anyway as a result of the first contact or that he would have been able to regain his feet and been able to put the ball on the try line.

To award a penalty try the Ref / VR has to be certain that they would have scored had there not been a piece of foul play, and given the actual facts there is quite clearly no degree of certainty over that, hence both Referee & VR were in agreement that it was not a penalty try.

  • Haha 2

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

9 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Your forgetting this entire thread was intended to discuss decisions that went against Saints, until it was conveniently hijacked by numerous 'anti-Saints' posters to turn it into yet another bleeding hearts thread for Catalans.

But if you want to bring it back to one specific incident in the Yaha no try / penalty try then your constant assertion that Yaha would have scored is completely fanciful and based on nothing more than your desire to have seen Catalans win.

Was Yaha already over the try line when the head shot occured or in the process of putting the ball down over the try line - No

Was the first point of contact legal - Yes

Did the first contact change Yaha's direction of travel & momentum towards the sideline - Yes

Based on the above there is absolutely no degree of certainty that Yaha would not have gone over the sideline anyway as a result of the first contact or that he would have been able to regain his feet and been able to put the ball on the try line.

To award a penalty try the Ref / VR has to be certain that they would have scored had there not been a piece of foul play, and given the actual facts there is quite clearly no degree of certainty over that, hence both Referee & VR were in agreement that it was not a penalty try.

My interest in this thread, (in this argument) is motivated by a desire to see justice done. My assertion is not fanciful, it's based on an analysis of the mechanics of the contact (not withstanding Dunbars argument about the foul nature of the tackle).

I make it quite plain, that the initial contact, (with Yaha's shoulder) was fleeting (very short lived) and did not alter Yaha's course towards the in-goal area. The subsequent (foul play) contact with the crook of Makinsons arm striking Yaha's neck and head was of a much greater duration and it was this impulse, that resulted in Yaha being dragged over the touch line preventing the otherwise inevitable score.

I note with interest, you make no mention, of the duration of each (legal/illegal) part of the contact and Toppy, as unpleasant as it is, to you, this is the vital element in the analysis. 

I use the word dragged, rather than pushed or propelled because Makinson was already past Yaha, going over the touch line, but still attached to Yaha's neck, when Yaha's course was significantly altered.

I have no desire to see either team win unfairly. I'm concerned with fair play and just desserts. You can rest assured, if Yaha had done the same thing to Makinson, I would be making the same argument in Saints favour. Your insistence that my opinion is coloured by a desire to see Catalans win (unfairly) is just not true (and by the way, grossly insulting). 

In your post above, you ask and answer three questions. The answers to the first two are correct, though irrelevant. The third answer is completely wrong. See my argument above and all previous posts on the subject and if you can face it, watch the replay again.

On your last point, I've seen so many dubious decisions made by the video ref's over the years, the fact that they made a mistake on this occasion doesn't surprise me at all. 

Last of all, your suggestion that Yaha, would have had to ''regain his feet'' (after the initial impact) before crossing the line, is laughable.

He would simply have slid into the in-goal area unhindered.   

Edited by fighting irish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, fighting irish said:

My interest in this thread, (in this argument) is motivated by a desire to see justice done. My assertion is not fanciful, it's based on an analysis of the mechanics of the contact (not withstanding Dunbars argument about the foul nature of the tackle).

I make it quite plain, that the initial contact, (with Yaha's shoulder) was fleeting (very short lived) and did not alter Yaha's course towards the in-goal area. The subsequent (foul play) contact with the crook of Makinsons arm striking Yaha's neck and head was of a much greater duration and it was this impulse, that resulted in Yaha being dragged over the touch line preventing the otherwise inevitable score.

I note with interest, you make no mention, of the duration of each (legal/illegal) part of the contact and Toppy, as unpleasant as it is, to you, this is the vital element in the analysis. 

I use the word dragged, rather than pushed or propelled because Makinson was already past Yaha, going over the touch line, but still attached to Yaha's neck, when Yaha's course was significantly altered.

I have no desire to see either team win unfairly. I'm concerned with fair play and just desserts. You can rest assured, if Yaha had done the same thing to Makinson, I would be making the same argument in Saints favour. Your insistence that my opinion is coloured by a desire to see Catalans win (unfairly) is just not true (and by the way, grossly insulting). 

In your post above, you ask and answer three questions. The answers to the first two are correct, though irrelevant. The third answer is completely wrong. See my argument above and all previous posts on the subject and if you can face it, watch the replay again.

On your last point, I've seen so many dubious decisions made by the video ref's over the years, the fact that they made a mistake on this occasion doesn't surprise me at all. 

Last of all, your suggestion that Yaha, would have had to ''regain his feet'' (after the initial impact) before crossing the line, is laughable.

He would simply have slid into the in-goal area unhindered.   

Your obviously entitled to your opinion, though both RFL trained officials clearly disagree with you, hence why both referee & VR decided no penalty try should be awarded.

Just as a matter of interest do you think any of the following players should have been sin-binned for their respective incidents, given throughout the course of the year yellow cards have been readily handed out for them;

McIlorum for the deliberate trip ?

McMeekan for a direct contact head shot ?

Garcia for a direct contact head shot ?

LMS for contact with Tomkins in the air ?

Yaha for knees to Naiquama's head with no attempt to tackle with the arms ?

and in the case of the latter incident, Saints being awarded an 8 point try ?

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

12 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Your obviously entitled to your opinion, though both RFL trained officials clearly disagree with you, hence why both referee & VR decided no penalty try should be awarded.

Just as a matter of interest do you think any of the following players should have been sin-binned for their respective incidents, given throughout the course of the year yellow cards have been readily handed out for them;

McIlorum for the deliberate trip ?

McMeekan for a direct contact head shot ?

Garcia for a direct contact head shot ?

LMS for contact with Tomkins in the air ?

Yaha for knees to Naiquama's head with no attempt to tackle with the arms ?

and in the case of the latter incident, Saints being awarded an 8 point try ?

In general, I thought the refereeing was poor. With both sides affected.

I can't recall all the incidents you've listed. I'm just left with a good feeling about a really exciting match.

It's possible I was up, making a cup of tea, or otherwise distracted.

If the incidents occurred as you described I think yellow cards would have been appropriate.

I have no memory of the latter incident. I think, once a referee ignores an incident of foul play (in an attempt to keep the players on the field, for the sake of the spectacle) it tends to engender similar behaviour.

It would have been better to card the first offender.

I think it's a shame that so many infringements occurred and took a little of the shine, off a really great game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

In general, I thought the refereeing was poor. With both sides affected.

I can't recall all the incidents you've listed. I'm just left with a good feeling about a really exciting match.

It's possible I was up, making a cup of tea, or otherwise distracted.

If the incidents occurred as you described I think yellow cards would have been appropriate.

I have no memory of the latter incident. I think, once a referee ignores an incident of foul play (in an attempt to keep the players on the field, for the sake of the spectacle) it tends to engender similar behaviour.

It would have been better to card the first offender.

I think it's a shame that so many infringements occurred and took a little of the shine, off a really great game. 

Funny how you miraculously seem to have forgotten / not seen any of those other incidents, the majority of which went in Catalans favour, but can recall every fine detail of the Yaha no try / penalty try. In particular i'm amazed you have no recollection of the Yaha knees into Naiquama's head given he had to leave the field and missed the remainder of the match due to the head injury sustained from it, 😉

 

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

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Funny how you miraculously seem to have forgotten / not seen any of those other incidents, the majority of which went in Catalans favour, but can recall every fine detail of the Yaha no try / penalty try. In particular i'm amazed you have no recollection of the Yaha knees into Naiquama's head given he had to leave the field and missed the remainder of the match due to the head injury sustained from it, 😉

 

You seem determined to cause insult here and I'm disappointed in that.

I already explained that I might have missed some of the incidents you spoke of and my recollection of some of the others, is still fading as we speak.

I'm certainly not going to get involved in an argument about something I didn't see, or can't remember.

I acknowledged freely, that if they were as you described they should have been penalised/punished appropriately and added that (in my opinion) if the earliest incident had been dealt with then the others may not have even occurred. 

It's easy to explain (isn't it?) why I remember the Makinson/Yaha incident so well, it's because I've probably watched it almost a dozen times and been involved in a similar number of posts arguing my opinion on the referees decision.

I can't see any mystery in any of that. I don't believe anything I've said indicates any bias, one way or the other, or any attempt to conceal anything from you, which you seem sadly, quite determined to imply.

I was particularly interested in the Makinson/Yaha incident because, as stated previously, it was the one (and only) incident which, (if it had been correctly adjudicated) it's reasonable to argue, could have changed the result of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I was particularly interested in the Makinson/Yaha incident because, as stated previously, it was the one (and only) incident which, (if it had been correctly adjudicated) it's reasonable to argue, could have changed the result of the game. 

Except it was far from the one and only incident though was it.

Had the Yaha try been given the whole course of play up to the McMeekan try would have been different so they may not have scored that. Had the referee correctly adjudicated on all the sin-bin incidents and been consistent with what had been done throughout the course of the season (5 Catalan players binned in McMeekan, Garcia, McIlorum, Maloney & Yaha and 2 from Saints in LMS & Mata'utia) then the whole course of the game would have been different.

Its completely unreasonable to try and argue that 1 incident changed the result when there were multiple contentious decisions throughout that game that arguably would have had a similar if not bigger impact on the final result.

  • Haha 2

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

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...