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

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

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.

Yes, it was a perfectly good call based on modern guidelines. 

My point on this thread is that this play the ball was legal when you read the laws of the game but penalised under the current guidelines while all the other play the balls in the game were illegal based on the laws but allowed under the guidelines. 

I am just pointing out this contradiction. 

[RayCee]

With the try, if it is inconclusive, then there will always be an issue, whether it's your team benefitting or disadvantaged. The ref having to sent it up to the VF with an opinion when he has no idea is something that has always annoyed me. He should have three options, the third being I don't know. Having said that, the onus is then put on the VR and if he can't see, it will still be a contentious call either way. 

[StandOffHalf]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, it was a perfectly good call based on modern guidelines. 

My point on this thread is that this play the ball was legal when you read the laws of the game but penalised under the current guidelines while all the over play the balls in the game were illegal based on the laws but allowed under the guidelines. 

I am just pointing out this contradiction. 

Interesting, thoughtful comments from your good self!

It does show how the guidelines are used to supplement the laws. Instinctively, that just looked an ''off'' PTB to me, but I totally get your points about the letter of the law and differences in application out on the field.

[StandOffHalf]

Frustrating way for Warrington to lose that. Obviously, under the current system, it was the correct adjudication by the VR. I feel that the try was given because it came off two strong carries by Southern Hemisphere players who looked threatening, with Ma'u selling the putdown with conviction.

The ref sees that and it's understandable that he's swayed by the body language. NRL alumni are generally good in that regard.

Do I think the ball got to the ground? Probably not.

Quite an enjoyable game to bring the curtain down. Think Hull deserved it overall, but the ending will leave a bit of a sour note.

Liking Fash's hair and moustache! Very swashbuckling!

[bobbruce]

3 hours ago, Derwent said:

Warrington have been robbed there, no way that ball was down. How can a ref send it upstairs as a try when he clearly couldn’t see the ball ? 

 

2 hours ago, M j M said:

We've said it before and will again - this system for the video ref is really truly appalling. The on field ref doesn't know so why give them any say in it?

 

When they brought it in they managed to change something which wasn't broken and which nobody was calling for. 

 

Referee unsighted The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball

[lions05]

As others have mentioned, the ref's call is only really useful in certain situations.  In a case like today, it really needs some interaction between the video referee and the on field referee, or potentially just the on field referee to make the final call.  It seems unlikely today (and I agree Kendall was guessing), but it could have been that he had a view that no camera picked up that made him believe that it was a try.  In that case, it would be useful for him to compare his view (and subsequent opinion) with the angles offered by the replays.  He might say he saw it going down but just wanted to check it wasn't lost, for example.  So ref's call isn't entirely without merit, but it has to be based on a level of information rather than a completely unsighted referee.  

On the Gale play-the-ball, it seems to me that he had regained his feet and played the ball.  That he subsequently fell over doesn't seem particularly relevant if he wasn't falling when he played it. But I've not read up on laws and guidelines of late, so I may be wrong.  What I will say though is that I see zero merit in penalising a PTB like that.  The rule is surely aimed at ensuring players get to their feet, not at penalising players who do but then fall.  

[George Watt]

9 hours ago, DavidM said:

 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 

I have a quiet chuckle when I see a post like this as I am constantly harping on about PTB rule abuse. The only time I see games where the rule is followed almost 100% is in Womens NRL matches.   In the NRL, where I watch every match, there are players that never make any attempt to touch the ball with the foot. Tedesco is in this cohort. 

The SL PTB is a total joke.One notable exception is Welsby who has an exemplary record in following the rule.

Finally a comment on the Hull try by Shaul which in the NRL would not have been awarded as Ratchford was impacted and impeded by a decoy run from Ma'u?

Enjoyed the game though and although Hull got the points I would not have complained if a draw had ensued.

 

[Dave T]

48 minutes ago, George Watt said:

 

Finally a comment on the Hull try by Shaul which in the NRL would not have been awarded as Ratchford was impacted and impeded by a decoy run from Ma'u?

Yes, in reality, that was the most controversial decision, it was a blatant obstruction. 

I can live with the final try, because when we didn't have refs call, it was benefit of the doubt to the attack anyway, so the VR could have given it anyway. 

I thought there were a few shonky decisions tbh, but it is what it is, the ref calls what he sees. 

[bobbruce]

54 minutes ago, George Watt said:

I have a quiet chuckle when I see a post like this as I am constantly harping on about PTB rule abuse. The only time I see games where the rule is followed almost 100% is in Womens NRL matches.   In the NRL, where I watch every match, there are players that never make any attempt to touch the ball with the foot. Tedesco is in this cohort. 

The SL PTB is a total joke.One notable exception is Welsby who has an exemplary record in following the rule.

Finally a comment on the Hull try by Shaul which in the NRL would not have been awarded as Ratchford was impacted and impeded by a decoy run from Ma'u?

Enjoyed the game though and although Hull got the points I would not have complained if a draw had ensued.

 

On Welsby that’s purely because in one of his first games he got pinged by the ref for not playing it correctly. Despite his PTB being no different to anyone else that day. If that’s worked with him imagine how quickly refs could get players PTB correctly with a few penalties. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Even if the Ma'u try hadn't been given, it was only one of the first few tackles. Good chance we'd have gone over again anyway. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

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.

Agree he was teetering, BUT he played the ball and with his foot before over balancing forward, perfectly legal.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes, in reality, that was the most controversial decision, it was a blatant obstruction. 

I can live with the final try, because when we didn't have refs call, it was benefit of the doubt to the attack anyway, so the VR could have given it anyway. 

I thought there were a few shonky decisions tbh, but it is what it is, the ref calls what he sees. 

"Shonky decisions" are going to be given in all games Dave - that is a trait of referees no matter how good or bad they are - now you complaining has was Powell post match interview, please please tell me that your time at Warrington or in Powell's playing and coaching career both of you have never been the beneficiary's of "Shonky decisions"? they even themselves over the course of the season.

[StandOffHalf]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Agree he was teetering, BUT he played the ball and with his foot before over balancing forward, perfectly legal.

Interesting to read these responses from you and Dunbar. It probably was legal but it appears to have gone against the guidelines on PTBs.

Something in me looks at a player hurrying to his feet and then toppling over having played it and senses that it just doesn't look like a good or proper PTB. That's just something in me. I realise that it mightn't be a rational or correct take.

[Harry Stottle]

The play the ball area is the most contentious part of our game many things can happen, I have often wondered how a ref watching closely that no misdemeanors occur can also simultaneously check for the defensive line being onside, he either does one or the other at the exact moment the ball is being played, unless he has eyes that can look at right angles down the High St and Market St at the same time. 

Suggestion, as the play the ball is just a means of getting the ball back into play why not completely simplify it, let the tackled player regain his feet, stand, turn and hand it to the a.h.b. sounds daft doesn't it, but if that was the rule originally and someone came up with replacing it with the overcomplicated format we have today it would never be adopted.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

"Shonky decisions" are going to be given in all games Dave - that is a trait of referees no matter how good or bad they are - now you complaining has was Powell post match interview, please please tell me that your time at Warrington or in Powell's playing and coaching career both of you have never been the beneficiary's of "Shonky decisions"? they even themselves over the course of the season.

If that's what you read in my post, I suggest you try again. 

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Dave T said:

If that's what you read in my post, I suggest you try again. 

In this thread you have not debated long and hard with Dunbar about the legality or otherwise of that PTB decision? Then if I am wrong please accept my apologies.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

Interesting to read these responses from you and Dunbar. It probably was legal but it appears to have gone against the guidelines on PTBs.

Something in me looks at a player hurrying to his feet and then toppling over having played it and senses that it just doesn't look like a good or proper PTB. That's just something in me. I realise that it mightn't be a rational or correct take.

There appears to be 2 schools of thought at play here.

One where people want the PTB to be to the letter of the law. Which is a reasonable position to take. 

The other is being OK with the RFL stance of wanting a controlled PTB, and not being concerned if the foot technically touches the ball or misses by an inch or two. 

The difficulty we have is that neither solution is perfect, as I pointed out, those wanting it to the letter of the law would see that PTB last night as perfectly legal, when in fact it would make the game a shambles if that became the standard PTB. 

I'm OK with either option, neither of them affects my enjoyment, but I think if we are going to go with Option 1 then we need to touch up the law book to maybe add in the element of control to stop that one being technically legal. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

In this thread you have not debated long and hard with Dunbar about the legality or otherwise of that PTB decision? Then if I am wrong please accept my apologies.

Dunbar wasn't the ref. 

I agreed with the ref. 

[StandOffHalf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There appears to be 2 schools of thought at play here.

One where people want the PTB to be to the letter of the law. Which is a reasonable position to take. 

The other is being OK with the RFL stance of wanting a controlled PTB, and not being concerned if the foot technically touches the ball or misses by an inch or two. 

The difficulty we have is that neither solution is perfect, as I pointed out, those wanting it to the letter of the law would see that PTB last night as perfectly legal, when in fact it would make the game a shambles if that became the standard PTB. 

I'm OK with either option, neither of them affects my enjoyment, but I think if we are going to go with Option 1 then we need to touch up the law book to maybe add in the element of control to stop that one being technically legal. 

I too favour applying the letter of the law, but with the caveat that you propose. I think a player losing balance or falling over in the process of the PTB just looks messy.

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Dunbar wasn't the ref. 

I agreed with the ref. 

You are still doing your own adjudication, unless of course you suggest that referring decisions should never be questioned, which we know is not the case.

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Dunbar wasn't the ref. 

I agreed with the ref. 

Tell me Dave, and I know it is slipping back but what did you think when they purposefully 'Tidied' up the PTB down under I thought - my opinion - that it made for a much better spectacle and was nowhere near as contentious, 2nd part of the question do you think the differing interpretations of the hemispheres will cause problems for both the refs and player's in the WC?

[Old Frightful]

A fairly entertaining game and a win that was much needed for Hull FC. Too many errors for it to be regarded as a great game but enough twists and turns to keep the viewer interested. Sadly, even with a win, the knives are well and truly out for the coach and certain players on social media.

As for the VR decision that went in our favour, I thought we probably just about deserved it after James Child's imaginary knock on that went against us in the Derby. I know that's scant consolation for the Wire lot but hopefully it's another example of things evening themselves out over a season. Perhaps they'll get the benefit in coming matches.

Looked a pretty poor crowd to me, around 8k if they were lucky, a fair sprinkling of Wire fans, maybe 3 hundred or so, that made a noise all game, credit to them.

[Dunedan]

14 hours ago, Chris22 said:

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.

I disagree. Without the on field call  and having seen the ball held up with no evidence it was grounded, I think it would've been no try. 

As things currently stand, there is no point in going to VR for decisions where the ball is at the bottom of a pile like that, because there will never been enough evidence to overturn. Just make the decision and save us all some time.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

You are still doing your own adjudication, unless of course you suggest that referring decisions should never be questioned, which we know is not the case.

I have no clue what point you are making. We are discussing the match on the match thread. You said I was complaining about the ref. I wasn't. 

[MZH]

I think on balance it probably did get held up, but I don't think anyone can say that with any certainty. The ball wasn't too far away from the ground in the bits where we could see it, it's not like it was up on a defenders chest where grounding it would have been impossible. Then the pile moved and you couldn't see it. Maybe it was down, we will never know for sure. I agree that the system is flawed though. I don't mind the on field decision per se. But there should also be an option for the ref to just say I honestly have no idea, just have a look for me please.