Jump to content

Sat 17th Sept: SL: St Helens v Salford Red Devils KO 13:00 (Sky & Channel 4)


Who will win?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • St Helens
      28
    • Salford Red Devils
      35

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 17/09/22 at 12:00

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dunbar said:

Maybe I was influenced by the comments on here.  I went to take a look at it expecting it to be an awful one but it just didn't look that bad to me. 

I may be wrong, the review panel may see it as a bad one

I saw it as his arm pulled into an unnatural position for a prolonged period of time with force. There wasn't a natural wrestle, where we sometimes see unfortunate things like this happen,  he just held his arm and put strain on the joint. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't see the Knowles one live as I had to run an errand.

Just seen the video back and while a penalty, I didn't think there was a huge amount in it... not a classic chicken wing with a deliberate effort to force the arm into an unnatural position.  I just felt he was holding his wrist for too long.

Yes a penalty and yes a sin bin as it was a little dangerous but I don't expect a ban.

I’ll get shot down here but I think he was trying to control the tackle he’d lost. Didn’t think there was a massive amount in it but it was a really stupid way of trying to do it. He gets what he gets on the back of the panel he sits in front of. He can only blame himself for whatever he gets. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I saw it as his arm pulled into an unnatural position for a prolonged period of time with force. There wasn't a natural wrestle, where we sometimes see unfortunate things like this happen,  he just held his arm and put strain on the joint. 

 

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I’ll get shot down here but I think he was trying to control the tackle he’d lost. Didn’t think there was a massive amount in it but it was a really stupid way of trying to do it. He gets what he gets on the back of the panel he sits in front of. He can only blame himself for whatever he gets. 

I think both of these are reasonable positions as we don't know the intent.

I am inclined to think he was holding levers as an attempt to control the play the ball rather than an attempt to force the arm into a position that would cause injury.

But, as I say, I don't know for sure.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Behave. 

Why? I thought it was a shocker and he put the Salford player's arm in a really dangerous position and not just held it there but kept pushing it back. The static nature of it made it worse for me, it wasn't just a badly timed tackle or catching a falling player.

The game is hard enough without that kind of play, play which could seriously injure a player.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've found a perfect example of this.  Watch the Saints v Catalans grand final incident where Makinson got binned. 

It was clearly no try as the Cats winger was fouled into touch. The ref stopped play,  said "No try,  check touch,  and check the merits of a penalty try".  He gives no verdict on the penalty try,  that is solely with the VR from then. 

As acknowledged,  the fact that the ref backs himself is fine by me. I'm not sure I wouldn't have used the tech in a semi final like that,  but we want refs to back themselves,  and he did. 

I know what you are saying here but I’m sure we had this discussion at the time. I was of the opinion that because his first contact was fine and was sending him into touch that’s what the VR went off. I know you disagreed but we are in danger of derailing the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I know what you are saying here but I’m sure we had this discussion at the time. I was of the opinion that because his first contact was fine and was sending him into touch that’s what the VR went off. I know you disagreed but we are in danger of derailing the thread. 

Aye,  I am highlighting process rather than the decision. 

Because quite frankly,  your assessment t of the decision is barmy,  half a tackle is legal and half illegal?  🤣 😉

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Aye,  I am highlighting process rather than the decision. 

Because quite frankly,  your assessment t of the decision is barmy,  half a tackle is legal and half illegal?  🤣 😉

It was a Saints player I only saw the legal bit. 

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

9 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I’ll get shot down here but I think he was trying to control the tackle he’d lost. Didn’t think there was a massive amount in it but it was a really stupid way of trying to do it. He gets what he gets on the back of the panel he sits in front of. He can only blame himself for whatever he gets. 

I think he was initially trying to turn him to slow the tackle, but keeping on pulling the arm into that position was at best stupid, at worst malicious. I very much doubt it was premeditated, but once he started and carried on it was dangerous. Only thing that might save him was he didn't use the arm as a lever, but if he gets a ban he can have no complaints. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

I think he was initially trying to turn him to slow the tackle, but keeping on pulling the arm into that position was at best stupid, at worst malicious. I very much doubt it was premeditated, but once he started and carried on it was dangerous. Only thing that might save him was he didn't use the arm as a lever, but if he gets a ban he can have no complaints. 

Your right in that some sort of technicality on what a chicken wing is will either ban him or let him off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Padge said:

There is no way the ref or video ref could look at it and say he was definitely about to score and was obstructed and that prevented him from doing so.

 

It’s the words “would have scored” that is the important bit and with the ball rolling dead and the distance the Salford player was from the ball the referee gave the correct decision. This is how the law has been for a number of years

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dkw said:

I think he was initially trying to turn him to slow the tackle, but keeping on pulling the arm into that position was at best stupid, at worst malicious. I very much doubt it was premeditated, but once he started and carried on it was dangerous. Only thing that might save him was he didn't use the arm as a lever, but if he gets a ban he can have no complaints. 

That is probably the best summing up of what actually happened. 

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

2 hours ago, SalfordSlim said:

So firstly, well done Saints. Best team won on the day but as a Salford fan I'm gutted and the lads did us proud in adversity (Croft/Ackers/Atkin etc). Saints flew out the blocks and we struggled to contain their pack but in fairness we never buckled and always kept ourselves in the game. I'm not commenting on most of the big calls as enough people have had a view on here and it's clear where people think the right/wrong calls were made. 

I'll ask one thing though....

Does anyone think Kendall would've given a penalty try if it was Saints attacking? Personally I'm not convinced Lafai would've got there but I'm not convinced if it was the other way round Kendall would've made the same decision. 

I think it would be an extremely brave ref to give a penalty try in a semi-final or final unless he was absolutely certain (eg, the ball was stationary in the in-goal and the attacker was tripped by the final defender, or similar). Just human to not want to have that kind of call.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't see the Knowles one live as I had to run an errand.

Just seen the video back and while a penalty, I didn't think there was a huge amount in it... not a classic chicken wing with a deliberate effort to force the arm into an unnatural position.  I just felt he was holding his wrist for too long.

Yes a penalty and yes a sin bin as it was a little dangerous but I don't expect a ban.

I think the benefit-of-the-doubt interpretation is that he was doing what happens in almost every tackle, which is grabbing the arm of a defender to prevent him rapidly playing the ball, and didn't know the arm was twisted - careless.

The no-benefit-of-the-doubt interpretation is that he deliberately put pressure on to injure - reckless.

I guess the MRP will decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen the incidents back, really foolish play by Knowles. No advantage to gain by his actions. I expect a ban and we can have no complaints.

I've watched the Welsby tackle and struggle to establish the point of contact (I have watched on a phone admittedly), but think he'll be OK.

As for the penalty try incident, the ball was rolling at quite a pace rather than bouncing and bobbling. In my view, Lafai wouldn't have got to the ball and the decision was correct.

That's the most subjective of calls though as there's no question it would have been close. I don't think anyone can say with certainty whether he would have scored or not.

Given the wording of the law, it's very much a matter of opinion. And there's a good argument for either opinion.

Edited by Chris22
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

Having seen the incidents back, really foolish play by Knowles. No advantage to gain by his actions. I expect a ban and we can have no complaints.

I've watched the Welsby tackle and struggle to establish the point of contact (I have watched on a phone admittedly), but think he'll be OK.

As for the penalty try incident, the ball was rolling at quite a pace rather than bouncing and bobbling. In my view, Lafai wouldn't have got to the ball and the decision was correct.

That's the most subjective of calls though as there's no question it would have been close. I don't think anyone can say with certainty whether he would have scored or not.

Given the wording of the law, it's very much a matter of opinion. And there's a good argument for either opinion.

I think that's a fair assessment.  The laws state its if the ref thinks it would be a try,  and he explicitly stated he didn't think it would be a try.  I think it was 50/50 so his decision has to be accepted either way. 

I must admit,  I don't know what incident people are referring to with Walesby,  when in the game was it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the Knowles incident was the forcing of the arm behind the back and then the straightening.

That is precisely how one does an arm-bar in combat sports and the straightening of the arm should see him banned. It was a nasty and unnecessary act.

Personally, I would have given a penalty try for the Makinson pull on Lafai. Just subjective though. There's an argument both ways, so the referee shouldn't really be castigated for interpreting it as he did.

Great season Salford! Really feel for them with the injuries to key men. I was hoping that they'd win today but Saints are a good team and deservedly get to OT once again. I thought Lomax controlled and executed really well for them. I think that performance there today sees him all but confirmed as England's #6 alongside Williams at #7 - if he's fit.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went today. Credit to both sets of fans - fabulous advert for the (greatest) game. Just watched game back - think ref got all the big calls right. It was an amazing game.
 

I pity those who are NOT rugby league fans

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

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that's a fair assessment.  The laws state its if the ref thinks it would be a try,  and he explicitly stated he didn't think it would be a try.  I think it was 50/50 so his decision has to be accepted either way. 

I must admit,  I don't know what incident people are referring to with Walesby,  when in the game was it? 

Middlish of the 1st half. Salford were trying to move the ball left to right deep in their own half, and Welsby read the play, targeted Atkin and hit him at pace as he collected the ball. Atkin was already falling backward as contact was made, and Welsby had bent his back, so it was something of a chest-on-chest contact. Welsby did wrap his arms, so it wasn't a shoulder charge, and tbh on first viewing there's nothing there except a big hit. Afterwards, Atkin did have a bloodied nose though, and some suggest it came from that tackle. In the replay though, it was hard to see any cause other than Welsby's chest sliding over his face after initial contact. I did wonder whether it was a face-to-face clash, but there was no sign of anything on Welsby.

Tbh, I'd be really quite surprised if anything came of it. There was no shoulder charge, the tackle was aimed low, it was a chest-on contact, and Atkin got up and played the ball quickly. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that's a fair assessment.  The laws state its if the ref thinks it would be a try,  and he explicitly stated he didn't think it would be a try.  I think it was 50/50 so his decision has to be accepted either way. 

I must admit,  I don't know what incident people are referring to with Walesby,  when in the game was it? 

I’m guessing first half when he picked the Salford play and came out and put a great tackle in. In live play I thought it was fine but the Salford lad got up with a bloodied nose. As others have said even on replay it’s difficult to see where first contact is. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that's a fair assessment.  The laws state its if the ref thinks it would be a try,  and he explicitly stated he didn't think it would be a try.  I think it was 50/50 so his decision has to be accepted either way. 

I must admit,  I don't know what incident people are referring to with Walesby,  when in the game was it? 

This one:

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Roy Haggerty said:


Tbh, I'd be really quite surprised if anything came of it. There was no shoulder charge, the tackle was aimed low, it was a chest-on contact, and Atkin got up and played the ball quickly. 

 

Agreed,  I think there is enough in the positioning of Welsby to suggest that would firmly be accidental.  Potentially a caution around recklessness at the very worst,  but I'd be surprised if anything comes of it. 

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
  • 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.