Fri 23rd Feb: SL: Warrington Wolves v Hull FC KO 8pm (Sky)

[LeeF]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

A couple of people claimed earlier in the thread that they can't say it was wrong. 

I tried to read the disciplinary files, but I gave up tbh. 

I said that they can’t say it was wrong in this instance but only because the MOs followed the guidelines that they have to follow. I know we disagree on whether the decision was correct but that’s the rationale to my post.
 

I would hope/ expect that they will say that the guidelines/ protocols were followed but have been revised for future. 

If the MOs misinterpreted the guidelines then they aren’t the only ones and the RFL can say that it was an incorrect decision but they need to explain exactly why and not hang the MOs out to dry.

It’s still very early days and sometimes things need tweaking as you go along. This should not be a reason to abandon the progress being made nor should the RFL dig in and ignore what happened last night. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

I said that they can’t say it was wrong in this instance but only because the MOs followed the guidelines that they have to follow. I know we disagree on whether the decision was correct but that’s the rationale to my post.
 

I would hope/ expect that they will say that the guidelines/ protocols were followed but have been revised for future. 

If the MOs misinterpreted the guidelines then they aren’t the only ones and the RFL can say that it was an incorrect decision but they need to explain exactly why and not hang the MOs out to dry.

It’s still very early days and sometimes things need tweaking as you go along. This should not be a reason to abandon the progress being made nor should the RFL dig in and ignore what happened last night. 

The protocols can be followed and the conclusion can still be wrong though is where I'm coming from. There is human opinion at play so there always will be errors (and disagreement on opinion). 

There is absolutely a case that having your head in a dangerous position is illegal, but I just think they viewed it incorrectly, personally. I don't have an issue with red for head on head, but I don't think last night was correct. The ref stated no mitigating factors, I'd disagree. 

A little like on the Donaldson one on Thursday, correct protocol followed, but most believe it should have been red. This is like that imo. 

A poor decision by human refs. 

[Padge]

I don't think people really have an issue with trying to reduce or eliminate head contact, what people have an issue with is the application of the available sanctions.

Red (in respect to this) should only ever be for deliberate or totally reckless play that results in forceful head contact.

I like the ideas that the ref has an option of yellow with review by VR with then option to upgrade to red, also an option to remove the offender but allow a sub after ten minutes to bring it back to 13 v 13 but the offender can go and wash his kit.

Everything then graded down from yellow to penalty.

Seems we have given refs too few options to cover a large number of complex scenarios.

 

 

[Dave T]

Just now, Padge said:

I don't think people really have an issue with trying to reduce or eliminate head contact, what people have an issue with is the application of the available sanctions.

Red (in respect to this) should only ever be for deliberate or totally reckless play that results in forceful head contact.

I like the ideas that the ref has an option of yellow with review by VR with then option to upgrade to red, also an option to remove the offender but allow a sub after ten minutes to bring it back to 13 v 13 but the offender can go and wash his kit.

Everything then graded down from yellow to penalty.

Seems we have given refs too few options to cover a large number of complex scenarios.

 

 

Have we though? Because for high tackles a ref can use those three stages you mention, penalty, yellow, red. 

Has anything been published that says head on head can't be punished in the same way? 

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Have we though? Because for high tackles a ref can use those three stages you mention, penalty, yellow, red. 

Has anything been published that says head on head can't be punished in the same way? 

So there only 3 grades of offence, what I said was to give them 5 grades.

Since you bring up head on head, lets have a what if.

What if a high cross-field kick occurs, both opposing wingers (other players are available) see it is where it is going and decide the best option is to move further outfield and jump for the ball and pat it back to their team. To this end they turn their bodies and start moving backwards to position themselves, they both jump for the ball and heads clash.

Do you send them both off. Do you send the defender off, if you do then you are saying that the defender is not allowed to defend if a head clash may occur, reverse for attacker.

What if, looking at the state of last nights pitch, a ball drops in no mans land and is on the ground, two players dive for the ball but because of the greasy surface they both slide along the ground and heads clash, who is guilty, who gets the call.

This could go on for a while...

[Dave T]

Just now, Padge said:

So there only 3 grades of offence, what I said was to give them 5 grades.

Since you bring up head on head, lets have a what if.

What if a high cross-field kick occurs, both opposing wingers (other players are available) see it is where it is going and decide the best option is to move further outfield and jump for the ball and pat it back to their team. To this end they turn their bodies and start moving backwards to position themselves, they both jump for the ball and heads clash.

Do you send them both off. Do you send the defender off, if you do then you are saying that the defender is not allowed to defend if a head clash may occur, reverse for attacker.

What if, looking at the state of last nights pitch, a ball drops in no mans land and is on the ground, two players dive for the ball but because of the greasy surface they both slide along the ground and heads clash, who is guilty, who gets the call.

This could go on for a while...

First line - yes, apologies, missed that point, and I agree with the point on the yellow to red review like Union. 

On your examples - with the ref having the option of play on, penalty, yellow or red, he has all the tools at his disposal to choose the appropriate action. Out and out accidental head clash with neither player at fault is play on. 

[Padge]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

First line - yes, apologies, missed that point, and I agree with the point on the yellow to red review like Union. 

On your examples - with the ref having the option of play on, penalty, yellow or red, he has all the tools at his disposal to choose the appropriate action. Out and out accidental head clash with neither player at fault is play on. 

But it isn't, its a red for the defender.

Edited February 24 by Padge

[Ullman]

5 hours ago, Derwent said:

The penalty try bemused me. The ref can be clearly heard asking the VR to “check the merits of a penalty try”. The VR then says the Ref has awarded a penalty try on the field and he can’t see a reason to overturn it. But the Ref never said he’d awarded it, he asked the VR to advise him. 

Not the most egregious misinterpretation of the night by the VR but you're absolutely correct. That's how the conversation went.

[Ullman]

5 hours ago, phiggins said:

Was it an error by officials, given the new rules?

I'd say so yes. The new guidance placing the onus on the defender not to cause a head clash makes a lot of sense but what we saw last night was a complete misinterpretation of when it should apply.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

I like the ideas that the ref has an option of yellow with review by VR with then option to upgrade to red, also an option to remove the offender but allow a sub after ten minutes to bring it back to 13 v 13 but the offender can go and wash his kit.

I suggested being able to bring a sub on for a sent off player a couple of years ago.  Roundly ridiculed because "his team weren't punished" despite his team having fewer sub options, so they are, really.

Maybe I'm just ahead of my time but I've seen too many games ruined as a spectacle by a first half sending off.  And if sendings off are going to be frequent, maybe we need to reconsider our position.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

But it isn't, its a red for the defender.

I haven't seen the evidence for that. 

[bobbruce]

3 hours ago, Fly-By-TheWire said:

Is it true that only one insurer will cover the RFL?   If this is the case I guess and they're dictating the terms then we're stuffed and have to accept it.   What else can we do?

I mentioned it earlier, slightly in jest, but if the above is true then we really need to come up with some revolutionary thinking.   Can we get the NRL's insurers to cover us in some way?   Maybe the NRL could assist with the premiums as they seemingly want to get involved over here?   Other than that just make tackling the legs the only allowed method.

I'm not that hot on legal stuff (I'm not Zak Hardaker before you ask) so I'm not sure whether getting players to sign a waiver for 'accidental contact' would stand up in future cases?

What if they don’t want to sign it do you sack them. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

@Wellsy4HullFC didn't say or harp on about one bad decision, he is talking about where the game seems to be heading with these rules, I am with him 100% with him, I have already got my season ticket for this year, but with the next set of rules coming next season I won't be buying one then  I can only envisage it will be worse than this season in my view.

Well I'm glad someone got it.

I've watched 2 Hull games and seen 6 cards. The first round had 13 cards, 4 of them red. It's more than just one decision. And of that decision, it's not like it's a decision they just didn't notice (like giving a penalty try despite a similar thing happening earlier in the game and not even getting a penalty, that might just not have been seen), it was thought about and decided after deliberation.

This is the precursor before even more stringent rules come in. If this is how bad it is now, then it's only going to get worse. I can genuinely see a lot of people turning away from the game very quickly if we insist on this much of a shift.

[Padge]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I haven't seen the evidence for that. 

Last night's game.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

7 hours ago, gingerjon said:

If you want to watch men hitting each other in the head then other sports and niche websites are available.

Has dishing out over a dozen cards in one round prevented people being hit in the head?

If you want to avoid watching men getting hit in the head then there are other sports or even children's programmes available.

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Has dishing out over a dozen cards in one round prevented people being hit in the head?

If you want to avoid watching men getting hit in the head then there are other sports or even children's programmes available.

You don’t see the shoulder charge much these days. That’s because they outlawed and then enforced the outlawing.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

14 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It's a bad decision.

That's an overreaction to a bad decision.

 

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

I agree. I expect Bentham was thinking "FFS" rather than thinking the ref team did well. 

I actually think it was a horrible refereeing performance in poor conditions, at odds with how Smith managed the game the night before. 

But, we've seen bad decisions before, and we'll see them again. 

Is it a bad decision (as in the decision not following the laws)?

Or a bad decision (as in you don't agree with the laws)?

It really needs clarifying because people are going to think that's the way the game is going until mentioned otherwise. There is no evidence that I've seen so far that it was just a poor call from the ref.

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, Padge said:

Last night's game.

Neither of those things happened. There is no evidence. Neither of your examples involved a tackle. 

Edited February 24 by Dave T

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

 

Is it a bad decision (as in the decision not following the laws)?

Or a bad decision (as in you don't agree with the laws)?

It really needs clarifying because people are going to think that's the way the game is going until mentioned otherwise. There is no evidence that I've seen so far that it was just a poor call from the ref.

There is no evidence that it is correct. It's all speculation. 

It's something we've never seen before and the written evidence by the Sky sports journo was incorrect. 

We'll ultimately get an indication this week when we see the punishment. 

But your question is right, that is crucial here, if the RFL think that is correct we have an issue, if it was a poor call, we don't really. 

Edited February 24 by Dave T

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

 

Is it a bad decision (as in the decision not following the laws)?

Or a bad decision (as in you don't agree with the laws)?

It really needs clarifying because people are going to think that's the way the game is going until mentioned otherwise. There is no evidence that I've seen so far that it was just a poor call from the ref.

I believe it’s a bad decision because they have misinterpreted the laws but await clarification on that. If that is the law and it will alway be interpreted that way then we seem to have counter that examples where that isn’t the case.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You don’t see the shoulder charge much these days. That’s because they outlawed and then enforced the outlawing.

A shoulder charge is a deliberate action from a player.

A head shot is not (well... most of the time).

Completely different. You'll never get rid of head contact completely due to the nature of the sport. Penalising accidental contact to such a degree will not prevent it without fundamentally changing the sport.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There is no evidence that it is correct. It's all speculation. 

It's something we've never seen before and the written evidence by the Sky sports journo was incorrect. 

We'll ultimately get an indication this week when we see the punishment. 

But your question is right, that is crucial here, if the RFL think that is correct we have an issue, if it was a poor call, we don't really. 

Well there is evidence it was correct: the referee, having had time to deliberate, gave the decision based on his knowledge of the laws.

It's not like he missed something, or thought he saw something that didn't actually happen. He knew exactly what happened, had time to think, and came to that decision.

What reason is there to believe after all that he wouldn't be able to follow the laws?

[Dave T]

Just now, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Well there is evidence it was correct: the referee, having had time to deliberate, gave the decision based on his knowledge of the laws.

It's not like he missed something, or thought he saw something that didn't actually happen. He knew exactly what happened, had time to think, and came to that decision.

What reason is there to believe after all that he wouldn't be able to follow the laws?

Come on, you aren't new here, you've seen bad video ref and ref calls before. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Question:

If this is an insurance issue, how are we going to insure players for international games that use different rules?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Come on, you aren't new here, you've seen bad video ref and ref calls before. 

Yes, usually because something has been missed, not because something has been seen.