Fri 18th Aug: SL: Wakefield Trinity v Castleford Tigers KO 20:00 (Sky)

[PREPOSTEROUS]

We reverted to type last night, regardless of the referee. Lineham dropping the ball on the 40. Griffin's knock on just before half time, the amateur way we defended the resultant scrum, the Lino knock on after the Whitbread break, missed conversations, soft defence. Pretty much that has been our season. We had a bit of a lift with the arrival of Fifita which papered over the cracks, but ultimately we have not been good enough. 

[north yorks trinity]

8 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The first Castleford try was correctly awarded under the laws of the game. There was no separation so by definition there was downward pressure and control. The 2 offsides were also correct & are applied regularly  

Of course there are correct forward pass decisions and last nights was one just like in a lot of other games both this & in previous seasons. Nothing frustrating at all

I know your team lost but that was solely down to them. The referee was excellent. Head & shoulders above any player. 

It’s really not healthy this behaviour your are exhibiting. 

Regarding control - Yes if you choose how to define a word such an argument will always be valid!

"Solely down to them" - I thought I'd addressed this to you and Gingerjon and kept it simple but seems we'll have to agree to disagree.

Regarding unhealthy behaviour - Yes, I'm a little stressed and stress isn't healthy but hey, it's part of life. Talking (or in this case venting on a forum) helps though so I reckon I'll calm down over the weekend and be OK, or at least as OK as I ever am!

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, north yorks trinity said:

Regarding control - Yes if you choose how to define a word such an argument will always be valid!

"Solely down to them" - I thought I'd addressed this to you and Gingerjon and kept it simple but seems we'll have to agree to disagree.

Regarding unhealthy behaviour - Yes, I'm a little stressed and stress isn't healthy but hey, it's part of life. Talking (or in this case venting on a forum) helps though so I reckon I'll calm down over the weekend and be OK, or at least as OK as I ever am!

If your health is that bad, and I seriously mean this, then step away and get help. Ranting on a forum isn’t a solution. 

[north yorks trinity]

15 minutes ago, LeeF said:

What the heck are you on about. 

I thought it was obvious but I can spell it out. The idea that something has one single cause to the exclusion of anything else is, in most cases, bizarre and deluded. It's the sort of thinking which, when extended into real life, lends itself to the belief that all our problems are caused by immigrants/the EU/Brexit or whatever* 

 

*delete according to belief.

[north yorks trinity]

5 minutes ago, LeeF said:

If your health is that bad, and I seriously mean this, then step away and get help. Ranting on a forum isn’t a solution. 

I genuinely appreciate your concern. My health is actually OK though and I'm just talking about stress in terms of the highs and lows of following a sport that I care about. If it didn't bring highs and lows it probably wouldn't be worth so much of my time and energy.

[north yorks trinity]

31 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Of course there are correct forward pass decisions...

In reality yes of course...but a VR can't rule on them! I probably should have been clearer that I was referring to marginal calls though.

[StandOffHalf]

55 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The first Castleford try was correctly awarded under the laws of the game. There was no separation so by definition there was downward pressure and control. The 2 offsides were also correct & are applied regularly  

Of course there are correct forward pass decisions and last nights was one just like in a lot of other games both this & in previous seasons. Nothing frustrating at all

I know your team lost but that was solely down to them. The referee was excellent. Head & shoulders above any player. 

It’s really not healthy this behaviour your are exhibiting. 

He didn't have control though. He used the ground. Under the flawed, mistake-rewarding ''interpretation'' that they are going with I can understand the call, but I saw a ball coming out of his hand.

I think a re-gripping should be required. Not a good interpretation, in my view.

Edited August 19, 2023 by StandOffHalf

[redjonn]

47 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

We reverted to type last night, regardless of the referee. Lineham dropping the ball on the 40. Griffin's knock on just before half time, the amateur way we defended the resultant scrum, the Lino knock on after the Whitbread break, missed conversations, soft defence. Pretty much that has been our season. We had a bit of a lift with the arrival of Fifita which papered over the cracks, but ultimately we have not been good enough. 

yep, but to add I will never understand why in context of game and expectation of close result they as in Wakey did not take the 2 points on the early penalty - not only for the points but as a earlier settler the team.  

[The Blues Ox]

Personally thought that Kendall had a pretty solid game and its just a little unfortunate that the 2 major talking points were potential game changers. The offside try by the letter of the law is correct but at a non televised game would have been given as a try as Kendall sent it up as a try and seemingly had no issue with the player to the right. It does beg the question though if we are awarding things like that as penalties then why are we allowing some other stuff to go unpunished willy nilly? I mean the stupid crossing rule where players give themselves up, firstly its a penalty by the letter of the law and secondly they take a voluntary tackle which again is a penalty by the letter of the law. We also saw in the second half where the fullback drops the ball and the defender moves towards it although he does not end up picking it up and is given as a scrum, again by the letter of the law because he moves towards that ball in a deliberate act then it should be a penalty. The inconsistency in some of the rules do not help the ref's at all and its understandable that there is a huge range in interpretations between each ref. 

The forward pass try that was disallowed was the incorrect call, the ball clearly comes out of the attackers hand backwards and the only reason it looks anywhere near 50/50 is because the attackers momentum was stopped by a defender.  Its unfortunate that both these went against Wakefield but theres a chance that neither was actually Kendall's call and again I thought he had a pretty good game.

Overall the best team by quite some distance won the game so its hard for anyone to have any great complaints and Wakey look to be back in real trouble now.

[redjonn]

40 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

He didn't have control though. He used the ground. Under the flawed, mistake-rewarding ''interpretation'' that they are going with I can understand the call, but I saw a ball coming out of his hand.

I think a re-gripping should be required. Not a good interpretation, in my view.

I would agree... it came out of his hands.

It seemed to me that the V/R was looking for reasons to give the try... as in his first replay view it showed it more clearly and I thought its a No Try... but then the second viewing angle made it more uncertain and no reason to over rule ref... he should have kept to the first view angle.

As a matter of interest the wakey No Try...The V/R seemed more to be looking why not to give a Try... his first views gave him no reason to overrule ref... but then he said something like ... just caught glimpse player to the side, can we replay again.

Anyway I thought the major difference was Cas were better in their attacking plus I thought got away somewhat with their slowing the ruck/PTB, should have been plenty more six again's... another ref I think may have been more strict...

Edited August 19, 2023 by redjonn

[north yorks trinity]

The last few posts sum up my thoughts and are from neutral posters so I'm reassured that I'm not going mad! As I said earlier, I was OK about the first Cas try being given in spite of it being against the letter of the law. Just frustrating then that the letter of the law is then used as a defence of later unusual decisions which usually aren't given. And if the forward pass try had been correctly given, momentum would have been very much with Wakey. Whether we'd have had the composure to benefit is another matter but would have been nice to find out.

[John Drake]

12 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

that was not forward - sick to death of the game been stopped by the whistle- its killing RL

I'm sick to death of people on here whining about referees, it's killing match threads.

[daz39]

12 hours ago, Just Browny said:

I feel like panning to that group of Cas fans after each try is a bit risky for a family audience.

They ARE a family

[bobbruce]

8 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

The last few posts sum up my thoughts and are from neutral posters so I'm reassured that I'm not going mad! As I said earlier, I was OK about the first Cas try being given in spite of it being against the letter of the law. Just frustrating then that the letter of the law is then used as a defence of later unusual decisions which usually aren't given. And if the forward pass try had been correctly given, momentum would have been very much with Wakey. Whether we'd have had the composure to benefit is another matter but would have been nice to find out.

I’m not which decisions aren’t usually given. Sure players are offside or in the 10 and play allowed to go on but that all changes when the offside team gains an advantage then 99% of the time the penalty is given. In the two inside the 10 decisions last night Wakey got the ball back the ref then had no choice if he spots it. 

[StandOffHalf]

The forward pass NO TRY looked fine to me watching it back. It was one of those ones where the passer's momentum was stopped by contact. Out of the hands, the pass looked OK to me.

Certainly would have helped Wakey to notch that one!

Edited August 19, 2023 by StandOffHalf

[daz39]

39 minutes ago, John Drake said:

I'm sick to death of people on here whining about referees, it's killing match threads.

Just ban them, end of, it's ridiculous, banish them to Face-refbashing-book or twit-refbashing-ter

Edited August 19, 2023 by daz39

[north yorks trinity]

5 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I’m not which decisions aren’t usually given. Sure players are offside or in the 10 and play allowed to go on but that all changes when the offside team gains an advantage then 99% of the time the penalty is given. In the two inside the 10 decisions last night Wakey got the ball back the ref then had no choice if he spots it. 

The offside player had no bearing on what followed in either case.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

In reality yes of course...but a VR can't rule on them! I probably should have been clearer that I was referring to marginal calls though.

VR can’t rule on them for lots of reasons all previously discussed on here many times. Last night’s one involving Lineham was clear cut. 

[bobbruce]

3 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

The offside player had no bearing on what followed in either case.

If you are inside the 10 you are having an influence it’s the whole point of the rule. 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

I thought it was obvious but I can spell it out. The idea that something has one single cause to the exclusion of anything else is, in most cases, bizarre and deluded. It's the sort of thinking which, when extended into real life, lends itself to the belief that all our problems are caused by immigrants/the EU/Brexit or whatever* 

 

*delete according to belief.

The world is shades of grey. The laws of the game are fairly black & white. Last night’s “major” decisions were clear cut and correct. 

[LeeF]

54 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

He didn't have control though. He used the ground. Under the flawed, mistake-rewarding ''interpretation'' that they are going with I can understand the call, but I saw a ball coming out of his hand.

I think a re-gripping should be required. Not a good interpretation, in my view.

There was no separation between ball & ground before he scored the try. That was proven with the replays. 
 

Re-gripping is required if there is separation.  

[LeeF]

20 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

The offside player had no bearing on what followed in either case.

Irrelevant. They were within the 10 so are deemed to be interfering. It has been that way for many many years 

Edited August 19, 2023 by LeeF

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

If you are inside the 10 you are having an influence it’s the whole point of the rule. 

If you are within the 10 and not having an influence then what are you doing on the field would the coach’s view

[The Blues Ox]

15 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

The forward pass NO TRY looked fine to me watching it back. It was one of those ones where the passer's momentum was stopped by contact. Out of the hands, the pass looked OK to me.

Certainly would have helped Wakey to notch that one!

Yeah unfortunately the match officials got this wrong but they have to make a split decision and the defender stopping the attacker probably had a huge bearing on that decision and with the hindsight of the replay it was pretty clear to see how the ball came out of the Wakefield players hands. If the attacker is not stopped then he keeps in front of the ball and it's probably not even mentioned as a possible forward pass.

[StandOffHalf]

6 minutes ago, LeeF said:

There was no separation between ball & ground before he scored the try. That was proven with the replays. 
 

Re-gripping is required if there is separation.  

As I said, I can understand the call under the current interpretation.

I just think it's dumb and non-sensical where you can basically bring your hand down with minimal or zero control over the ball and be deemed to have scored.