Thur 15th Feb: SL: Hull FC v Hull KR KO 8pm (Sky)

[Bull Mania]

1. FC were absolutely dire. Smith just doesn't seem to be improving them. Long long season for them.

2. KR were OK, not great but got the job done. 

3. Sympathy for Sao but understand why it's a red in today's game. I hope the disciplinary come down hard on Parcell though. Complete dog act and if we're going to give reds for contact to head, then we need to make sure that there is sufficient deterrent on players trying  to get reactions from opponents which maybe result in them lashing out and resulting in "contact to head" Parcell deserves longer ban IMHO as there's zero mitigating circumstances for his actions. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

Mick Morgan would have thought it was a red!

 

 

[StandOffHalf]

25 minutes ago, meast said:

An intentional swinging arm the head/shoulder of an opponent, especially one on the ground is a red card, whether he hit him in the head or not.

In the current climate where we the game is trying to avoid tackling above shoulders, a swinging arm to that area is certainly not going to be just given 10 minutes sin bin.

I think it was the shoulder that went into the side of the KR player's face. As far as I could see the arm didn't really contact at all.

It was a silly attempt to finish off and follow up after Minichello and him had been involved in the tackle situation. I'm not sure it's as bad as the majority of comments on here would make out. The contact to the head from Pele's shoulder is what supports the red card.

Edited February 16 by StandOffHalf

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think it was the shoulder that went into the side of the KR player's face. As far as I could see the arm didn't really contact at all.

It was a silly attempt to finish off and follow up after Minichello and him had been involved in the tackle situation. I'm not sure it's as bad as the majority of comments on here would make out. The contact to the head is what supports the red card.

And the intent, he's very lucky he didn't connect, could have cause very serious injury.

His shoulder connected with his head, this would have been a red in a tackle never mind when the player is laid on the floor.

[StandOffHalf]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Its not the swinging arm that's the issue, you can swing your arm into a tackle, its the intent and the fact that he does contact with the head that makes it a dead set red card and a decent ban.

I mostly agree. The swinging arm is just for show and hardly touches Minichello. I see it as a red card for shoulder contact to the side of the head.

[StandOffHalf]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

And the intent, he's very lucky he didn't connect, could have cause very serious injury.

His shoulder connected with his head, this would have been a red in a tackle never mind when the player is laid on the floor.

For me, the intent was to put a big shot to finish off the tackle.

Edited February 16 by StandOffHalf

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

For me, the intent was to put a big shot to finish off the tackle.

Swap intent out for reckless - same result

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

You can wriggle out of a tackle as much as you like but if you start kneeing other players in the head under the current guidance you’ll get punished. You may not intend to but it then becomes a reckless action

"Wriggle out of a tackle"? 

Fine

How about when being assaulted / potentially eye gouged? 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

44 minutes ago, meast said:

He could have not kneed him in the head twice, thus leaving the referee with no option but to send him off, Sao probably knew that but let the frustration get the better of him.

We all probably know that too don't we?

Hhis face and eyes were being grabbed.....how on earth would he have known where Purcell's face was during that?

I'll say it again.....

If you are being assaulted / potentially eye gouged are you supposed to now wait patiently until the assaulter has finished? Just in case you end hurting the assaulter?

Madness 

Edited February 16 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

27 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I find those syndicated newspaper websites are absolutely abysmal to view.

Yes - the majority are completely unusable and I suspect the vast majority of people avoid them as a result 

It's a shame because surely if they toned down the pop ups and adverts to a certain level then a LOT more people would use them (and hence they make more money etc and less adverts etc) 

Anyway the Hull one is not that bad weirdly 

[meast]

31 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think it was the shoulder that went into the side of the KR player's face. As far as I could see the arm didn't really contact at all.

It was a silly attempt to finish off and follow up after Minichello and him had been involved in the tackle situation. I'm not sure it's as bad as the majority of comments on here would make out. The contact to the head from Pele's shoulder is what supports the red card.

The contact isn't the issue, the swinging arm/intention is.

[meast]

19 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

"Wriggle out of a tackle"? 

Fine

How about when being assaulted / potentially eye gouged? 

 

17 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Hhis face and eyes were being grabbed.....how on earth would he have known where Purcell's face was during that?

I'll say it again.....

If you are being assaulted / potentially eye gouged are you supposed to now wait patiently until the assaulter has finished? Just in case you end hurting the assaulter?

Madness 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but it seems very much to me that you're saying, nay advocating that if a player is getting roughed up by an opponent then he has every right to knee that opponent in the head, not once, but twice and with no recrimination?

Yes, he was getting a facial from Parcell, the officials had seen that and were about to deal with it, Sao then loses his rag and knees Parcell in the head twice.

I can't understand your logic in saying that Sao has a right to kick out, knee someone because .........

2 wrongs etc.

[StandOffHalf]

9 minutes ago, meast said:

The contact isn't the issue, the swinging arm/intention is.

I disagree. Without the shoulder to the head, it would just have been a penalty for a swinging arm.

[Spidey]

33 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

"Wriggle out of a tackle"? 

Fine

How about when being assaulted / potentially eye gouged? 

Leave it to the ref to deal with as has always been the case

[The Phantom Horseman]

44 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

3. Sympathy for Sao but understand why it's a red in today's game. I hope the disciplinary come down hard on Parcell though. Complete dog act and if we're going to give reds for contact to head, then we need to make sure that there is sufficient deterrent on players trying  to get reactions from opponents which maybe result in them lashing out and resulting in "contact to head" Parcell deserves longer ban IMHO as there's zero mitigating circumstances for his actions. 

 

I think that's a good summary. I think most neutrals watching the game would have found Parcell's play more irritating than Sao's, but equally, watching the incident live, my immediate thought was that it would be a yellow to Parcell for niggling and a red to Sao for dangerous contact/action with the knee, and that's how it turned out.

The problem in sanctioning Parcell is, unless they judge it to be gouging (and I don't think it was), which would be a 6+ game ban, it's hard to know what offence to charge him with. Maybe under rule 15 (i) "other Contrary behaviour", which can be graded anything from A to F. But I don't think there's much of a history of that rule being used in this type of context.

[jacksy]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

And being sent straight off.

But feeling good about yourself.

I've watched it back just now. I said last night that I thought it was harsh but understandable and that's still my point of view. You can't watch someone take the law into their own hands - the second knee in particular is completely unnecessary - and then ignore it, especially if you're putting a marker down for the way the rules are going to be enforced.

Thankfully, it made not a blind bit of difference to the overall game, which, although fun, was a pretty scrappy way to start the Super League season.

I'm not defending anyone. I know retaliation gets punished

I'm just saying if someone is gouging me I am retaliating. Of course, plenty here would not and will lay on the floor helpless whilst their precious vision is put at risk. 

 

[daz39]

11 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Pulled to the ground by his face ....then Parcell attempts to leverage him on his back using his hands on his face 

Not sure what Sau could or should have done differently ...he didn't play act or make a fuss about his face being grabbed...he was trying to get up and play the ball 

 

Do you get up and play the ball on your side with your knees raised in the air these days then?

[Faithful1865]

16 hours ago, Worzel said:

Ridiculous queues to get into the away end. Several hundred metres. Hull FC in their infinite wisdom didn’t open the gates until 10 minutes ago. 

This stuff isn’t hard

This isn't down to Hull FC.  The stadium is run by a management company.

[Padge]

11 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

The referee did not give what he saw. From his position, he would not have seen Sau’s action.

That is a bizarre comment, you are claiming you know what the ref saw. Wow, that is some super power you've got. 

[Sports Prophet]

1 minute ago, Padge said:

That is a bizarre comment, you are claiming you know what the ref saw. Wow, that is some super power you've got. 

Is it? I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, the referee wasn’t in a suitable position to see what occurred. If I am right, then it doesn’t take any particular super powers.

Similar to the way it doesn’t take super powers for me to know that you can’t see what gesture I made when I read your comment.

[tiffers]

3 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

And I disagree with you Tiffers 

I think he was trying to get up (and get away from being illegally face grabbed and potentially eye gouged)

For what its worth - I've just re-watched the highlights on the BBC and there is no clear attempt at gouging. Yes there is a hand then forearm in Sao's face and it is very grubby from Parcell who should absolutely be binned (at least) and see a ban coming.

The knee:

 

That knee is instant red today. As a RL player you have responsibility for where your body ends up in attack or in defence. Whether you intend to do anything or not is beside the point. Whether you are defending yourself or not is beside the point. If you are putting another player in danger and you make contact with the head, then it is absolutely 100% a card. You cannot do it no matter what the circumstances are. He let his own emotions get the better of him and chose to use the knees.

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Come off what? 

His face was being held to the ground 

He was trying pivot himself up to get away from the illegal face grabbing / potential eye gouging 

Again...is it now expected players calmly lie there until the assault is over?

That doesnt give a player carte blanche to enact retribution without punishment, its a ridiculous point to make.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Faithful1865 said:

This isn't down to Hull FC.  The stadium is run by a management company.

I know. But us lot stuck in an unnecessary queue in the rain for 45 mins decided that the gates didn’t open earlier because your lot are probably charged by the hour for your rented stadium…

So it’s still your fault for not paying more.  

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, meast said:

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but it seems very much to me that you're saying, nay advocating that if a player is getting roughed up by an opponent then he has every right to knee that opponent in the head, not once, but twice and with no recrimination?

Yes, he was getting a facial from Parcell, the officials had seen that and were about to deal with it, Sao then loses his rag and knees Parcell in the head twice.

I can't understand your logic in saying that Sao has a right to kick out, knee someone because .........

2 wrongs etc.

Eye damage can be irreversible and life changing 

If someone is potentially doing it then you need to just protect yourself first and foremost 

[John Drake]

I'm gonna lock this one now.

We got through the game without any problems, so thanks everyone for that, but I think the longer these threads are left open afterwards, the more likely they are to descend into the kind of arguments and recriminations that turn people off them, and which then get carried over into subsequent match threads.

Feel free to open new topics to pick up on general issues that arise from certain matches.