Sat 13th May: SL: St Helens v Salford Red Devils KO 13:00 (C4)

[idrewthehaggis]

30 minutes ago, meast said:

Some right paddying by Salford fans this weekend.

What are they gonna be like when Watson's Giants dump them out of the cup on Saturday night

Paddying?

Tsk tsk tsk. Bernard Manning wouldn't even such antiquated language.

 

[Saint Toppy]

16 hours ago, Gavin Harrison said:

Really?

Perhaps explained by astonishing decisions like the one that he made in awarding St Helens a penalty at the play the ball?

Salford are 12-0 up & have Saints pinned inside their own 20.

Batchelor spectacularly dives to the floor from 2nd marker & it's a penalty.

As a result, Salford are then defending a set from halfway & Saints then get a repeat set. 12 tackles & a lot of work that should not have been done.

When Salford do get the ball back they were trapped in their own 20 & Saints were on the front foot defensively.

Salford forced to kick from deep in their own half & Saints core off their 3rd set.

That absolutely ridiculous call from Kendall changed the whole momentum of the game.

Never mind the absolute failure to send Lees off, which left Salford a forward short in that heat for 60 minutes.

 

Having watched the game back again now the reality of what actually happened in that match is somewhat different to some of the posters comments on here.

Regarding Burgess, so the whole incident had absolutely nothing to do with Burgess having a complete brain fart with him grabbing Batchelor by the ankle and pulling him over in an attempt to take out Saints marker and create a gap for them then ?

Burgess tried to cheat, got caught, got penalised - end of !!!

It no different to the Atkin incident. When the kick goes up Atkin starts to run towards the touchline in an attempt to block the chasers. He then looks over his shoulder and sees that Sironen is inside him so he changes his direction to run back infield and he deliberately puts himself in Sironen's path to block him. The whole incident was caused by Atkin trying to cheat and block the chasers. The fact he then gets flattened by the guy he's trying to block and ends up having to spend 2mins on the sidelines is a bit of justice being served on a guy who tried to cheat. And as for the point of contact, there's not one single camera angle that C4 broadcast that shows that Sironen raised his arm or elbow or dipped his shoulder to make contact with Atkin's head, and if anything the camera angles all appear to show that the contact was with his back.

This considering they got away with one in the first half where Sneyd deliberately changed his line and hit Lomax off the ball by raising his elbow into his chest. Lomax gets knocked off his feet and ends up twisting his ankle which takes him out of the next defensive set while he receives treatment up field. 

3 incidents Salford cheated in that game, 1 they got penalised, 1 they lost a player for 2mins and 1 they got away with and gained an advantage. But hey lets ignore all these incidents and just blame the Ref for Salford getting beaten !!!

Oh and have the Anti-Saints posters on here put away their pitchforks yet for Lees for breaking Wright's ankle with that open handed slap on the head.

[Saint Toppy]

9 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Paddying?

Tsk tsk tsk. Bernard Manning wouldn't even such antiquated language.

 

Give over with your PC nonsense !!!

While the origins of the term were linked to the Irish complaining about the English, the phrase has long since just been used to describe someone having a temper tantrum regardless of their race.

[Harry Stottle]

On 13/05/2023 at 14:42, Jughead said:

Yes it is. But yeah, the game is corrupt and saints get everything. Obviously. 

Not everything, but to a neutral watching the many televised games involving Saints, they get more than their fair share.

[Harry Stottle]

On 13/05/2023 at 20:52, LeytherRob said:

Sironen did none of those things though, so its a pointless argument. Atkin moved intentionally into the path of a player running full tilt to chase a ball down for the sole purpose of impeding him. If Atkins doesn't want to get hit, don't get in the way.

I remember many years ago, the late Terry Newton shoved Sean Long - who was obstructing him from getting to the player in possession - Long got shoved into another Saints player and Newton got banned for a number of games, now if Atkin collided with another Salford player due to Sironens action should he also receive a ban?

[Harry Stottle]

On 13/05/2023 at 21:59, Gavin Harrison said:

Kendall had a very poor game.

I think this is where Kendall is very consistent, he more than any other ref in my opinion has poor games, but it seems he gets more of the bigger matches than any other ref.

Why is that? 

[Gavin Harrison]

12 hours ago, FearTheVee said:

Sensible to start at 12-0 as you don’t need to include the missed punch thrown and blatant late shot on saints players, which makes your job much easier. Good decision.

A missed punch

You mean the in goal incident where Bell has Partington around the neck & effectively grapple tackle him?

What blatant late shot?

Kendall was gaving a teally nice chat with your players on the pitch at half time.

[Gavin Harrison]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Having watched the game back again now the reality of what actually happened in that match is somewhat different to some of the posters comments on here.

Regarding Burgess, so the whole incident had absolutely nothing to do with Burgess having a complete brain fart with him grabbing Batchelor by the ankle and pulling him over in an attempt to take out Saints marker and create a gap for them then ?

Burgess tried to cheat, got caught, got penalised - end of !!!

It no different to the Atkin incident. When the kick goes up Atkin starts to run towards the touchline in an attempt to block the chasers. He then looks over his shoulder and sees that Sironen is inside him so he changes his direction to run back infield and he deliberately puts himself in Sironen's path to block him. The whole incident was caused by Atkin trying to cheat and block the chasers. The fact he then gets flattened by the guy he's trying to block and ends up having to spend 2mins on the sidelines is a bit of justice being served on a guy who tried to cheat. And as for the point of contact, there's not one single camera angle that C4 broadcast that shows that Sironen raised his arm or elbow or dipped his shoulder to make contact with Atkin's head, and if anything the camera angles all appear to show that the contact was with his back.

This considering they got away with one in the first half where Sneyd deliberately changed his line and hit Lomax off the ball by raising his elbow into his chest. Lomax gets knocked off his feet and ends up twisting his ankle which takes him out of the next defensive set while he receives treatment up field. 

3 incidents Salford cheated in that game, 1 they got penalised, 1 they lost a player for 2mins and 1 they got away with and gained an advantage. But hey lets ignore all these incidents and just blame the Ref for Salford getting beaten !!!

Oh and have the Anti-Saints posters on here put away their pitchforks yet for Lees for breaking Wright's ankle with that open handed slap on the head.

That is utterly hilarious. It really is.

 

Sneyd dodn't hit Lomax off the ball. Lomax ran into the back of Sneyd & went down spectacularly.

Just like Batchelor did. Burgess didn't pull his legs away. Batchelor weighs 17st.

Sironen deliberately smashed in to the back of Atkin. He was never going to get anywhere near the ball & was not blocked from doing so.

Lees was runnng at speed & way after losing the ball goes for Wright, & catches him clean in the face with a forearm.

Would have been a HIA from that impact alone.

Wright doesn't have the ball. He's not braced for any contact. Lees impact takes him completely off balance & as a result he suffers a serious injury.

 

 

[Saint Toppy]

6 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

That is utterly hilarious. It really is.

 

Sneyd dodn't hit Lomax off the ball. Lomax ran into the back of Sneyd & went down spectacularly.

Just like Batchelor did. Burgess didn't pull his legs away. Batchelor weighs 17st.

Sironen deliberately smashed in to the back of Atkin. He was never going to get anywhere near the ball & was not blocked from doing so.

Lees was runnng at speed & way after losing the ball goes for Wright, & catches him clean in the face with a forearm.

Would have been a HIA from that impact alone.

Wright doesn't have the ball. He's not braced for any contact. Lees impact takes him completely off balance & as a result he suffers a serious injury.

 

 

Oh you are complete joke, what you've just put is completely contradicted by the TV camera's so your just making yourself sound like a muppet by making things up to suit your anti-Saints agenda.

[JohnM]

11 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Paddying?

Tsk tsk tsk. Bernard Manning wouldn't even such antiquated language.

 

You a Mumsnet regular by any chance?

Reading your response got me in a right paddy.

Anyway, because the measure is not the desire to cause offence, but the feeling of being offended in the recipient, I have to say I'm outraged and offended by the use of the term "St. Helens".

[FearTheVee]

40 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

That is utterly hilarious. It really is.

 

Sneyd dodn't hit Lomax off the ball. Lomax ran into the back of Sneyd & went down spectacularly.

Just like Batchelor did. Burgess didn't pull his legs away. Batchelor weighs 17st.

Sironen deliberately smashed in to the back of Atkin. He was never going to get anywhere near the ball & was not blocked from doing so.

Lees was runnng at speed & way after losing the ball goes for Wright, & catches him clean in the face with a forearm.

Would have been a HIA from that impact alone.

Wright doesn't have the ball. He's not braced for any contact. Lees impact takes him completely off balance & as a result he suffers a serious injury.

 

 

Oh, I get it now.  Enjoy your character.

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not everything, but to a neutral watching the many televised games involving Saints, they get more than their fair share.

So you’re saying that the dominant side over a 4-5 year period, who have the ball a large percentage of the time in games, get more penalties? I mean, yeah, that’s a bit obvious, isn’t it?

If you don’t have the ball or complete your sets with a poor completion rate, you’re never going to receive that many penalties, are you? 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Jughead said:

So you’re saying that the dominant side over a 4-5 year period, who have the ball a large percentage of the time in games, get more penalties? I mean, yeah, that’s a bit obvious, isn’t it?

If you don’t have the ball or complete your sets with a poor completion rate, you’re never going to receive that many penalties, are you? 

Not implying anything, just an observation Juggy, obviously being a fan of said club you will not notice it the same.

[Jughead]

25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not implying anything, just an observation Juggy, obviously being a fan of said club you will not notice it the same.

No, I’m just applying common sense. I suspect that clubs with very little of the ball are unlikely to get anywhere near the amount of penalties a side who are dominant and have plenty of the ball get. It’s hardly groundbreaking or a wild belief but it certainly doesn’t suit others narratives. 

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Saints get any more preferential treatment to any side because I simply don’t believe that any side get preferential treatment and people are too quick to abuse refereeing, which isn’t helped by the punditry on Sky and certain journalists news articles. 

[Saint Toppy]

5 minutes ago, Jughead said:

No, I’m just applying common sense. I suspect that clubs with very little of the ball are unlikely to get anywhere near the amount of penalties a side who are dominant and have plenty of the ball get. It’s hardly groundbreaking or a wild belief but it certainly doesn’t suit others narratives. 

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Saints get any more preferential treatment to any side because I simply don’t believe that any side get preferential treatment and people are too quick to abuse refereeing, which isn’t helped by the punditry on Sky and certain journalists news articles. 

Actually thats not always the case, the Stats over the last 4 years of Saints winning titles dont show them to have received the most penalties. Even this weekend the penalty count was only 7 - 4 in Saints favour which isn't a huge difference given their 2nd half dominance.

Saints 'domination' is more down to other factors with this weekend one of the most telling ones was metres made. While Walmsley was managing over 200m on his own, not one single Salford forward managed to make over 100m with their best being Sam Stone who managed 78m.

[JohnM]

If you don't believe me , check it up on 't Internet: "Congenital cheats" is a an anagram of "Saint Helens. "

I wish I could blame referees for their success but I can't and It pains me to say this but Its obvious: Saints, especially under Woolf, were ( and still may well be, despite their new coach) the best, most "professional"  SL team for many years.  They are fast, skilful, fit, strong, motivated, smart and currently the nearest thing we have to an NRL-capable side and the nearest thing we have to the great Wigan side of 30 years ago under Lowe, Monie and Mo.

[Chrispmartha]

Lees on a Grade D Charge referred to tribunal

Sironen grade B 1 match

Saints have a real problem with discipline this year.

[Saint Toppy]

5 hours ago, Gavin Harrison said:

That is utterly hilarious. It really is.

Sneyd dodn't hit Lomax off the ball. Lomax ran into the back of Sneyd & went down spectacularly.

Sironen deliberately smashed in to the back of Atkin. He was never going to get anywhere near the ball & was not blocked from doing so.

 

So the disciplinary panel have reviewed all the incidents and decided Sneyd DID deliberately run in front of Lomax to block him, and as for the Sironen / Atkin incident, it wasn't even referred to as being an issue worthy of further review by the panel (though Sironen did get a 1 match ban for the late tackle on Croft in the 1st half). So now who's hilarious  !

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

So the disciplinary panel have reviewed all the incidents and decided Sneyd DID deliberately run in front of Lomax to block him, and as for the Sironen / Atkin incident, it wasn't even referred to as being an issue worthy of further review by the panel (though Sironen did get a 1 match ban for the late tackle on Croft in the 1st half). So now who's hilarious  !

And Lees?

[Saint Toppy]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

And Lees?

And what about Lees, I think you'll find i've not commented on that incident so far on this thread. He drops the ball and in attempting to stop the Salford player from picking it up he goes to grab him, but catches him high and then Wright hurts his ankle as he lands.

Do I think he deliberately went to hit him in the head - No.

Do I think he deliberately went to hurt his leg/ankle - No

Do I think he was reckless in throwing his arm out to stop Wright from getting the ball - Yes.

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Do I think he was reckless in throwing his arm out to stop Wright from getting the ball - Yes.

Seems Lees has been adjudged to being reckless more than once this season picking up bans and fines, so how many reckless actions do you need to promote it to deliberate?

But we have been told, like his teammate who is serving a sentance at the moment he is not that type of player!

[Chrispmartha]

13 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

And what about Lees, I think you'll find i've not commented on that incident so far on this thread. He drops the ball and in attempting to stop the Salford player from picking it up he goes to grab him, but catches him high and then Wright hurts his ankle as he lands.

Do I think he deliberately went to hit him in the head - No.

Do I think he deliberately went to hurt his leg/ankle - No

Do I think he was reckless in throwing his arm out to stop Wright from getting the ball - Yes.

I was just asking your opinion on it. 

[Gavin Harrison]

Saints fans sit down & shut up.

Kendall & Moore need standing down after that disgrace.

[Saint Toppy]

18 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

Saints fans sit down & shut up.

Kendall & Moore need standing down after that disgrace.

So you still wont admit you made things up and posted utter b*&%$x then 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Seems Lees has been adjudged to being reckless more than once this season picking up bans and fines, so how many reckless actions do you need to promote it to deliberate?

But we have been told, like his teammate who is serving a sentance at the moment he is not that type of player!

Deliberate infers an intent to cause harm or injury to another player with their actions, recklessness doesn't.

Maybe they should have charged Atkin for the deliberate attempt to injure himself when he ran in front of Sironen  (and that was a joke before Gavin Harrison spits out another dummy)

Edited May 15, 2023 by Saint Toppy