Jump to content

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

John Drake

Who will win?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Hull FC
      11
    • Warrington Wolves
      9

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 18/04/22 at 17:00

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, dkw said:

What, don't milk a penalty? He has no one to blame but himself. Just get up, play it and their in a great attacking position.  Amazing to see rl fans ok with play acting and cheating.

In this discussion I don't know or care whether he was trying to milk a penalty. 

My point is that by the laws of the game he played the ball correctly and was penalised for playing it incorrectly.... while almost every other play the ball in this game and this season broke the laws of the game.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Derwent

Derwent

Posted
Posted

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 ? 

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Just Browny

Just Browny

Posted
Posted

No way. The only reason he has given that is because the Hull player claimed he had got it down.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Davo5

Davo5

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Wow POWELL will be spewing and rightly so . How can the ref award that on field ? 

He guessed 

dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

In this discussion I don't know or care whether he was trying to milk a penalty. 

My point is that by the laws of the game he played the ball correctly and was penalised for playing it incorrectly.... while almost every other play the ball in this game and this season broke the laws of the game.

But he didn't, it wasnt anything like a controlled play the ball as he launched himself forward. 

 

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
Just now, dkw said:

But he didn't, it wasnt anything like a controlled play the ball as he launched himself forward. 

 

This is my point.  The laws of the game make no mention of control, that is the interpretation that we now use to allow hundreds of incorrect play the balls and penalise this one.

As I say, if you can show me the laws of the game that were broken there and deserved a penalty, I will hold my hands up and say I am wrong.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

JohnM

JohnM

Posted
Posted

In my view, Hull deserved the win...just. Entertaining high energy game. 

Bernard Manning lives! Welcome to be New RFL, the sport's answer to the Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club.
 
dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

This is my point.  The laws of the game make no mention of control, 

 

Oh come on, that's ridiculous levels of pedantry. 

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, dkw said:

Oh come on, that's ridiculous levels of pedantry. 

Sorry, I am genuinely at a loss to understand your point here.  We are talking about the application of the laws of the game and you say that actually mentioning what the laws do or don't say is pedantry?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

meast

meast

Posted
Posted

On the Mau try, the referee awarded a try on the field and then ask the VR to look for conclusive evidence that it WASN'T grounded correctly, the VR couldn't find any evidence to deny that he had grounded the ball, therefore the try had the stand as the on field ref gave it.

We may not like it, because in effect they both guessed as to whether a try is scored.

For me, unless there is absolute conclusive evidence then a try shouldn't be awarded.

Huddersfield Giants Supporters Association

Dunedan

Dunedan

Posted
Posted

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.

dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry, I am genuinely at a loss to understand your point here.  We are talking about the application of the laws of the game and you say that actually mentioning what the laws do or don't say is pedantry?

It also doesn't specifically say don't milk a penalty, so let's just let that happen too.

M j M

M j M

Posted
Posted

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. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, dkw said:

He didn't though, you can't play it while falling forward trying to milk a penalty. 

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. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
Just now, 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. 

I'm not gonna moan about the refereeing, not my style, but this VR system is weird and always has been. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, meast said:

On the Mau try, the referee awarded a try on the field and then ask the VR to look for conclusive evidence that it WASN'T grounded correctly, the VR couldn't find any evidence to deny that he had grounded the ball, therefore the try had the stand as the on field ref gave it.

We may not like it, because in effect they both guessed as to whether a try is scored.

For me, unless there is absolute conclusive evidence then a try shouldn't be awarded.

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

dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted
1 minute 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. 

It's really odd isn't it, vr was brought in to assist refs who aren't sure if it's a try, but then they changed it to make a ref who doesn't know if its a try make a decision on if its a try.

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, dkw said:

It also doesn't specifically say don't milk a penalty, so let's just let that happen too.

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?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.