Sat 2nd Mar: SL: Salford Red Devils v Hull KR KO 5.30pm (Sky/SuperLeague+)

[Padge]

1 hour ago, graveyard johnny said:

well it doesn't resemble 90s RL

and 90s RL didn't resemble 80s RL

and 80s RL didn't resemble 70s RL

In fact season after season RL changes, its a very dynamic sport that is very adaptable and progressive. Not like some of its followers.

[The Blues Ox]

28 minutes ago, LeeF said:

It’s not a stiff arm. A hand off is the palm of the hand

It was just a strange incident really but I could see why Litten was annoyed as to me that was not a hand off that was more a forceful jab but we couldnt see if it was flat palm or not but still didn't look great. Litten then copped a hand/forearm when he went back in to the tackle. Was very surprised having watched it that the penalty went Salford's way.

 

As above though it does beg the question where a hand off falls in the rules because it is direct and intentional contact with an opponents head which is the very thing the game is trying to crack down on. It certainly does seem to have been overlooked but maybe that incident we will see the RFL make some sort of ruling on it.

[Just Browny]

I feel like if the ref would have done better to say the penalty was against Litten for acting like a mard after getting handed off. I would certainly have approved.

On the game, Salford did very well but thought they might have blown it during those mad two minutes when Watkins failed to pass to his winger and then Cross got himself binned for a daft foul.

[Padge]

53 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Rules question, are handoffs to the face still allowed in these days of clamping down on head contact? Seems mental that an attacking player can still quite forcefully put their hand in the face of opposition. 

I found myself pondering that very thing, a hand off is somewhat different to most other head contact in that it is an accepted form of defence against a tackler.

[Hopie]

42 minutes ago, LeeF said:

It’s not a stiff arm. A hand off is the palm of the hand

A stiff arm is what they call a hand off in America, confusing isn't it...

[Red Willow]

The pitch held up well considering it rained all day and an hour before kick off we had hail!

The Tim incident was odd. Live it appeared the pen was called for the way Litton ran in and rom the stand it looked like first contact was from the blind side and high.

Roves only seemed to score when there wasn't a full compliment on the field!

I'll take another win though

 

[Padge]

58 minutes ago, Hopie said:

A stiff arm is what they call a hand off in America, confusing isn't it...

No it isn't, I am watching rugby league, why TF would I consider some dumb American game's laws to cause confusion.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, meast said:

I know that but surely a hand into the face with force is equal to intentional and forceful contact?

It was more a question than a statement of fact.

I would differ about the force being equal. A hard off has less force and is less dangerous

[Snowys Backside]

2 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Rules question, are handoffs to the face still allowed in these days of clamping down on head contact? Seems mental that an attacking player can still quite forcefully put their hand in the face of opposition. 

Andy Farrell broke my jaw with a handoff . 
 

Thankfully, still hung on to tackle the ugly sod though

[LeytherRob]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

It’s not a stiff arm. A hand off is the palm of the hand

Semantics. The point is, it's forceful contact to the head even if it is an open palm and you can do quite a bit of damage to someone with the butt of your palm if it's thrown with force as Lafai was doing. If they are serious about cutting down head contact then it seems daft to allow attackers to contact the head with impunity whilst severely cracking down even the slightest secondary contact from defenders. 

[LeytherRob]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

I found myself pondering that very thing, a hand off is somewhat different to most other head contact in that it is an accepted form of defence against a tackler.

Yeah i know it's long been an accepted practice against tacklers, just seems a really odd oversight not to be addressing it considering the zero tolerance approach to all head contact.

[Padge]

4 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Yeah i know it's long been an accepted practice against tacklers, just seems a really odd oversight not to be addressing it considering the zero tolerance approach to all head contact.

No doubt another protocol/clarification will be forthcoming.

Edited March 2 by Padge

[Red Willow]

I have a question about the colour the ref wore, a couple of times in the game it looked the same colour as Rovers especially when down near the big screen. I don't suppose that showed on TV

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

An enjoyable game and result.  The persistent errors from the ex Wakefield mercenaries nicely adding to the entertainment.

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, WSCR said:

Is there an opticians near to where you live, a visit to for yourself is an urgent requirement.

No, but I’ve just got off the Salford pitch and my goggles are a bit smudged so it might be that 

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, meast said:

Maybe they'll be a bit quieter this week until they're the real deal again

I like this “real deal” obsession if yours. Of course some of us remember it originated from one of my fellow Rovers fans, Hull Kingston Bronco (where is he these days, I liked that guy?), who early last season said Hull KR were the real deal that year, defining ‘real deal’ as likely Top 4 finishers.

You laughed at that and thought it hubris… but remind us, what did the table show after 27 rounds?  

(Top Tip: if you’re going to create a running joke, it’s better if you’re not the butt of it )

 

Edited March 2 by Worzel
Typo

[meast]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

I like this “real deal” obsession if yours. Of course some of us remember it originated from one of my fellow Rovers fans, Hull Kingston Bronco (where is he these days, I liked that guy?), who early last season said Hull KR were the real deal that year, defining ‘real deal’ as likely Top 4 finishers.

You laughed at that and thought it hubris… but remind us, what did the table show after 27 rounds?  

(Top Tip: if you’re going to create a running joke, it’s better if you’re not the butt of it )

 

The real deal thing came from radio Humberside a couple of years back when they claimed rovers were the real deal after beating a lacklustre Huddersfield side.

I've seen a few KR fans claim they're the real deal too, it's not an obsession, it's amusing, it's like the Warrington " always their year" thing now.

I laugh at a lot of things, life's too short

[Click]

2 hours ago, Wollo Wollo Wayoo said:

An enjoyable game and result.  The persistent errors from the ex Wakefield mercenaries nicely adding to the entertainment.

Which ex Wakefield mercenaries are you talking about?

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Yeah if anything it was litten who was on the receiving end of head contact twice from lafai in that tackle.

I thought Litten was hit in the upper chest region with that hand off. 

Edited March 3 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Hopie said:

A stiff arm is what they call a hand off in America, confusing isn't it...

 Not in the least, a car bonnet is called a hood in America, the boot is a trunk, nappies are diapers and a tap is a faucet, just a few linguistic differences there are many more.

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Semantics. The point is, it's forceful contact to the head even if it is an open palm and you can do quite a bit of damage to someone with the butt of your palm if it's thrown with force as Lafai was doing. If they are serious about cutting down head contact then it seems daft to allow attackers to contact the head with impunity whilst severely cracking down even the slightest secondary contact from defenders. 

Where are we going to stop with all this, an attacker is allowed to lead with his shoulder should that also be stopped?

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Padge said:

No doubt another protocol/clarification will be forthcoming.

Yawn, that is not against your answer but the constant tampering with the rules should it happen.

FWIW, I can't recall seeing an handoff delivered in that manner for a very long time, it was an action delivered because the circumstance warranted it for the attacker to avoid being tackled, and I still think it hit Litten in the chest are there any other camera angles to prove otherwise?

[Segovia Carpet]

Can we have some elastoplast for Lewis' mouth.  Lout.

[Old Frightful]

Just now, Segovia Carpet said:

Can we have some elastoplast for Lewis' mouth.  Lout.

A quote from Chubby Brown springs to mind :

"If I could afford the wood I'd have had your mouth boarded up"...

[WSCR]

11 hours ago, Worzel said:

No, but I’ve just got off the Salford pitch and my goggles are a bit smudged so it might be that 

Is that John Wilkin going home after the match?