Mon 18th Apr: SL: Hull FC v Warrington Wolves KO 17:30 (Sky)

[meast]

Just now, Dave T said:

It was absolutely the correct decision based on the current processes. 

Absolutely, which is my point.

The process may not be ideal but the correct process was followed which gave Hull the win.

[Barry Badrinath]

6 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

He's held up, he's held up, he's held up... I can't see the ball...try.

I know it's the rules, but that was ridiculous. I hate the on field call.

Thars a direct quote from kendal im guessing? 

[DavidM]

6 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

He's held up, he's held up, he's held up... I can't see the ball...try.

I know it's the rules, but that was ridiculous. I hate the on field call.

Yes pretty much this . Ref guesses … VR has the technology but is totally shackled by having to have the refs call in mind . If you don’t know don’t guess and hand  it to  the VR … and if you do just let him adjudicate 

[dkw]

Just now, Dunbar said:

As I have said, I don't know if he was trying to milk a penalty or not - my point is not about that at all.

he was penalised for playing the ball incorrectly.

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.  According to the laws of the game (not this years interpretations, the actual laws) was this an incorrect play the ball?

No.

[DavidM]

Just now, Barry Badrinath said:

Thars a direct quote from kendal im guessing? 

The VR , ball up , ball up , still up , can’t see . Try as ref said it is 

[dkw]

3 minutes ago, DavidM said:

The VR , ball up , ball up , still up , can’t see . Try as ref said it is 

Vr had no choice really, which is why the refs call is so daft.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Genuine query: under the of laws, would it not have been benefit of the doubt attacking team?

[Davo5]

1 minute ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Genuine query: under the of laws, would it not have been benefit of the doubt attacking team?

That was another silly rule.

[Just Browny]

Gutted with the result as I thought we deserved something from the game. I wont say any more on the final try as I know why it was given even if I don't agree.

I thought it was a really good game between two committed sides which belied the usual stereotypes about Easter Monday games.

I feel a lot better about Warrington, even in defeat, because I thought we worked our socks off and played some nice stuff. Daryl Clark looked much sharper and Thewlis showed why he is highly rated. The left hand side is becoming potent again.

[Rockingchair]

Neutral fan here , I can see why Warrington fans are frustrated as ultimately the try is a guess , too many games are won and lost on 50/50 decisions, not sure what can be done about it but hope it evens itself out over the course of the season.

[Oldham 1]

My feeling is not just scrap the refs call but do away with the video ref at the ground , let the referee look at a monitor for himself and make the decision by himself , even saves having a video official at these games meaning the top officials are attending less matches and fresher

[dkw]

2 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Gutted with the result as I thought we deserved something from the game. I wont say any more on the final try as I know why it was given even if I don't agree.

I thought it was a really good game between two committed sides which belied the usual stereotypes about Easter Monday games.

I feel a lot better about Warrington, even in defeat, because I thought we worked our socks off and played some nice stuff. Daryl Clark looked much sharper and Thewlis showed why he is highly rated. The left hand side is becoming potent again.

Powell seems to have allowed Clark back to playing at his best, running when any opportunity is seen, after years of that being stifled under Price.

[Just Browny]

Just now, dkw said:

Powell seems to have allowed Clark back to playing at his best, running when any opportunity is seen, after years of that being stifled under Price.

You say that but I watched him on Thursday night and he wasn't doing much of what he did today. Either he is getting fitter or Powell had a word with him over the weekend.

[dkw]

Just now, Just Browny said:

You say that but I watched him on Thursday night and he wasn't doing much of what he did today. Either he is getting fitter or Powell had a word with him over the weekend.

Maybe one of the things Powell was on about when he says it's taking time to alter things from the last coach.

[Dunbar]

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. It is weird to claim that as a good PTB. I understand the point, but this is the problem with the obsession with studs touching leather. 

People who hate the current PTB would rather see that. 

I didn't claim it was a good play the ball.  I said that it was a legal play the ball; while almost every other play the ball was illegal and let go.  Some of them farcical.

I just don't see any value whatsoever in just allowing this part of the game to degrade and my first post on this subject was just highlighting the irony of where we are today with penalising correct play the balls and letting incorrect one's go.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't claim it was a good play the ball.  I said that it was a legal play the ball; while almost every other play the ball was illegal and let go.  Some of them farcical.

I just don't see any value whatsoever in just allowing this part of the game to degrade and my first post on this subject was just highlighting the irony of where we are today with penalising correct play the balls and letting incorrect one's go.

No, and apologies for putting words in your mouth, but you want a PTB where the studs miss the ball by an inch penalised, but that PTB where the player dives on the floor to be play on. 

I think this is where the PTB is challenging, there are so many things going on that we can always find something to pull, and it is where the RFL has gone with a controlled approach which means the game looks better and manages the pace. 

But your approach of going with the letter of the laws is problematic, as that PTB highlights perfectly, because it would be legal under your terms. 

It's not worth us going round on this, we know each others view, I just think this one was a really good visual example of how it is rather difficult to get a perfect solution. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

You say that but I watched him on Thursday night and he wasn't doing much of what he did today. Either he is getting fitter or Powell had a word with him over the weekend.

My personal view is he is getting fitter. He has clearly been struggling and playing within himself. I think the same of our halves too. 

I wasn't too disappointed with tonight, I thought there was plenty to be positive about, plenty to work on. It was a tough night, but we are climbing out of crisis mode and we are seeing some of those forwards stand up a bit. 

[The Future is League]

I think Wolves fans were expecting more from their team this season with Powell. Sadly for them its not happening 

[DavidM]

To me Gale was on his feet , played the ball perfectly with his foot , then he fell forward . The actual ptb was perfect . That gets penalised in total isolation while almost literally every other ptb is a complete unstructured mess of roll ball , walking over it , running over it , throwing it between your legs and every variation in between . These are all perfectly valid says the ref , but falling over after playing it is in isolation picked up . The whole ptb thing to me is totally bizarre , and made over complicated when it should be simple . Get up and play the ball with the foot , it isnt and shouldnt be difficult , and if it gets more structure in the ruck and slows the game down a tad fair enough . We’ve become obsessed by speed , especially in the ruck , and as a result its disintegrated into a farce . As shown in the NRL you can have a fast game and a cleaner ruck , and they still have a margin of error where you just need to make an attempt to ptb 

[DimmestStar]

Huge effort from both teams which is commendable with a ludicrously short turnaround.

I don't think anyone actually knows for sure if the winning try was legitimate or not and I include the referee, the video referee and the try scorer. At no point did the replays show the ball grounded so it was down to the referees guess.

That's tough for Warrington but always I ask....ok but who was the better team? And I think it was Hull.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

No, and apologies for putting words in your mouth, but you want a PTB where the studs miss the ball by an inch penalised, but that PTB where the player dives on the floor to be play on. 

I think this is where the PTB is challenging, there are so many things going on that we can always find something to pull, and it is where the RFL has gone with a controlled approach which means the game looks better and manages the pace. 

But your approach of going with the letter of the laws is problematic, as that PTB highlights perfectly, because it would be legal under your terms. 

It's not worth us going round on this, we know each others view, I just think this one was a really good visual example of how it is rather difficult to get a perfect solution. 

Again, you have said that I want something that I don't.

I want the players to play the ball properly.  And if they try to, and the studs miss the ball by an inch, then I am OK with that... this is where the ref has discretion.  This is where the NRL is now and it is better.

What I hate is the Super League play the balls.  But even then I wouldn't have even posted on this thread about the hundreds of incorrect play the balls if a correct one wasn't penalised.   The irony drove me to it!

If this is what we want then let's just rewrite the laws.

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Again, you have said that I want something that I don't.

I want the players to play the ball properly.  And if they try to, and the studs miss the ball by an inch, then I am OK with that... this is where the ref has discretion.  This is where the NRL is now and it is better.

What I hate is the Super League play the balls.  But even then I wouldn't have even posted on this thread about the hundreds of incorrect play the balls if a correct one wasn't penalised.   The irony drove me to it!

If this is what we want then let's just rewrite the laws.

But you have said the current PTB is illegal. And you said the PTB today was legal. 

So you have said what I claim in a roundabout way. 

The offence today was in line with RFL guidelines. 

[Dunbar]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But you have said the current PTB is illegal. And you said the PTB today was legal. 

So you have said what I claim in a roundabout way. 

The offence today was in line with RFL guidelines. 

As I've said a few times, I am talking about the laws, not the guidelines. 

The fact that we have guidelines that contradict the laws of the game says it all really.

[Chris22]

With the Ma'u try, this is how it would have gone in different scenarios we have or have had.

No video referee = try

On field call = try

Benefit of doubt to attack = try

Ultimately, a decision has to be made and I don't think anyone can say with any certainty whether the ball was grounded or not. So it's a difficult situation to resolve.

Personally, I'm happy to accept that referees make calls and get on with the game. We have had various ridiculous and convoluted systems because many stakeholders in the game cannot.

[StandOffHalf]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Welcome to Rugby League in 2022.  Play the ball as per the laws of the game and get penalised.  Play the ball incorrectly for 79 minutes and 50 seconds and all fine.

He didn't regain his balance, to be fair. I thought it was an OK call. He was teetering and going over as he played it.