Fri 8th Mar: SL: Leigh Leopards v Leeds Rhinos KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

They did. I’m struggling to understand your argument. Did you want reds and yellows because they were against Leigh?

No just consistency.

[ColD]

6 minutes ago, dkw said:

The double movement one, looked like they got it right to me.

The problem with the VR their is that he made a decision (from what was shown on TV) based on the worst angle he could have had, it needed a view from the other side to provide any clarity - maybe there are less camera’s at the ground nowadays with all games being on TV

 

the same with Hanleys try, that looked the right decision but needed a back view to see if the foot was raised or not 

[redjonn]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I bet your heart was in your mouth witnessing those tackles with what action has been taken by referees in previous weeks.

yes for me that would be true, but then again that applies to all the games I've watched this season.

I do assume that the application has changed since the first two rounds, or nuanced as RFL said following the Nu Brown clash of heads.

At the game last night I thought that Leigh took wrong approach 2nd half and should have managed the game better with better deep field kicking into touch. Having said that it was surprising how strong and bitingly cold the wind was during the game. Maybe why both teams struggled playing against it and maybe contributed towards each team dominating the half they did and corresponding playing poorly the other half.

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

No just consistency.

There was consistency. 

[Snowys Backside]

10 minutes ago, dkw said:

The double movement one, looked like they got it right to me.

Ok, 

Everyone looked shell shocked that he put the ball over the line but the ball carrying arm wasn’t grounded although you could deem the momentum was. 
 

The online call of the ref needs to stop and let the VR make the call. 
 

Every single person in the pub I was in (and on Sky) couldn’t see a DM where his ball carrying arm was grounded first before he reached over. 
 

I will look again later but I think the VR had a pie in the oven !

[phiggins]

Just now, LeeF said:

There was consistency. 

Have the protocols / guidance changed for high tackles and direct contact. I know they’ve changed for head clashes, but was surprised to see Ackers avoid a yellow

[LeeF]

2 minutes ago, redjonn said:

yes for me that would be true, but then again that applies to all the games I've watched this season.

I do assume that the application has changed since the first two rounds, or nuanced as RFL said following the Nu Brown clash of heads.

At the game last night I thought that Leigh took wrong approach 2nd half and should have managed the game better with better deep field kicking into touch. Having said that it was surprising how strong and bitingly cold the wind was during the game. Maybe why both teams struggled playing against it and maybe contributed towards each team dominating the half they did and corresponding playing poorly the other half.

Robert Hicks said as much at the time. I’m struggling to understand why it’s a surprise to some, not you, but maybe they just like a bit if drama. 

[Snowys Backside]

36 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Did it go up as no try?

Even no try’s are given !

You must have been the Video Ref. Determined a Double movement in 0.3 seconds

[LeeF]

Just now, phiggins said:

Have the protocols / guidance changed for high tackles and direct contact. I know they’ve changed for head clashes, but was surprised to see Ackers avoid a yellow

The referee clearly stated low end force and a dipping ball carrier. It’s always been that way and before anyone states what about Liam Watts his was a shoulder direct to the head with high end force and no mitigation from a dipping ball carrier

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, ColD said:

The problem with the VR their is that he made a decision (from what was shown on TV) based on the worst angle he could have had, it needed a view from the other side to provide any clarity - maybe there are less camera’s at the ground nowadays with all games being on TV

 

the same with Hanleys try, that looked the right decision but needed a back view to see if the foot was raised or not 

The Hanley decision was clear from what they looked at. So they should have double checked a clearly correct decision and then been accused of wasting time looking at clearcut decisions?

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, ColD said:

The problem with the VR their is that he made a decision (from what was shown on TV) based on the worst angle he could have had, it needed a view from the other side to provide any clarity - maybe there are less camera’s at the ground nowadays with all games being on TV

 

the same with Hanleys try, that looked the right decision but needed a back view to see if the foot was raised or not 

That is exactly what I have thought not just this game but in previous weeks, which makes a mockery of the on field refs Try/No Try actions, 9 times out if 10 they VR will agree with the ref because of 'insufficient evidence' due to lack of camera angles to prove otherwise.

See we try to follow the NRL's lead again of VR's at every game, but once again we prove we are the poor cousins, who try to make do and mend.

[dkw]

3 minutes ago, Snowys Backside said:

Ok, 

Everyone looked shell shocked that he put the ball over the line but the ball carrying arm wasn’t grounded although you could deem the momentum was. 
 

The online call of the ref needs to stop and let the VR make the call. 
 

Every single person in the pub I was in (and on Sky) couldn’t see a DM where his ball carrying arm was grounded first before he reached over. 
 

I will look again later but I think the VR had a pie in the oven !

I agree with the onfield call thing to a degree, I dont mind the ref saying he thought it was/wasn't a try but I dont like that it then overrides the VR decision making.

Under the current rules the VR couldn't give it as it was sent up as a no try, and there was no certainty on any angle to fully disprove that. Same as the daft Wigan one.

[dkw]

So you fully disagreed with way refs were handling high tackles since the start of the season to a point you were going to walk away from the game. Yet now you also want them to keep consistently reffing in the same way you fully disagreed with?

Amazing logic, outstanding stuff 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, LeeF said:

There was consistency. 

With what, previous weeks judgements or just consistency in this game.

Or perhaps these head contacts will not be of sufficient force to add to the accumlative head contacts which I am told add up to problems in later life, isn't that the reason why there were steps taken to eradicate them early in the season, all on the advice of the medical experts.

[Ant]

This thread is a wild ride. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

So you fully disagreed with way refs were handling high tackles since the start of the season to a point you were going to walk away from the game. Yet now you also want them to keep consistently reffing in the same way you fully disagreed with?

Amazing logic, outstanding stuff 

What do you want, you were condoning the refs actions previously for head contacts now they seem to be OK.

Amazing logic, outstanding stuff.

Anyway were is that link to new guidelines, or is that just a lie to substantiate your argument.

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With what, previous weeks judgements or just consistency in this game.

Or perhaps these head contacts will not be of sufficient force to add to the accumlative head contacts which I am told add up to problems in later life, isn't that the reason why there were steps taken to eradicate them early in the season, all on the advice of the medical experts.

@LeeFis the laughing emoji the best you can do?

[phiggins]

22 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The referee clearly stated low end force and a dipping ball carrier. It’s always been that way and before anyone states what about Liam Watts his was a shoulder direct to the head with high end force and no mitigation from a dipping ball carrier

I disagree that it was low end force to be honest. It was an arm direct to the head and if that had been given as a yellow in any game in any round this season I don’t think many eyebrows would’ve been raised. That’s only one decision in 80 mins, and Leigh need to focus more on the right edge defence. But Ackers was a lucky boy in my opinion. 

[LeeF]

Just now, phiggins said:

I disagree that it was low end force to be honest. It was an arm direct to the head and if that had been given as a yellow in any game in any round this season I don’t think many eyebrows would’ve been raised. That’s only one decision in 80 mins, and Leigh need to focus more on the right edge defence. But Ackers was a lucky boy in my opinion. 

At the end of the day it’s not me or you who stated low end force. It was a close one but the ball carrier did dip. It’s not the reason for Leigh’ s defeat nor does it justify Beaumont’s rant

[LeeF]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

@LeeFis the laughing emoji the best you can do?

It was an appropriate response to your daft posts

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With what, previous weeks judgements or just consistency in this game.

Or perhaps these head contacts will not be of sufficient force to add to the accumlative head contacts which I am told add up to problems in later life, isn't that the reason why there were steps taken to eradicate them early in the season, all on the advice of the medical experts.

Did you want the clamp down on head contact and the issuing of yellow and red cards to continue, or were you one of those who felt it was harming the game?

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I had assumed that when we hear the video ref call for a particular camera, we are seeing exactly and all of what he is seeing, hence my surprise at no request for a side view.  I think potentially all the cameras can be shown on our TV screens.

I wholly agree with you that there is absolutely no justification for the subsequent Beaumont rant.  Bernard Guasch was rightly fined when he lashed out verbally after, I think, the GF defeat against St Helens.  So consistency dictates the same for Beaumont.

 

Didn’t Gausch just outright say he didn’t want an English ref or something? 
While it’s a clear toys out of the pram post, Beaumont hasn’t actually said anything in that post that you can fine him for. 

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

At the end of the day it’s not me or you who stated low end force. It was a close one but the ball carrier did dip. It’s not the reason for Leigh’ s defeat nor does it justify Beaumont’s rant

Agree with that. Just think Ackers was lucky that’s all. As a challenge, I actually have more issue with Croft’s on O’Brien. I don’t think he intended to tip him, but it was sly and he could easily have avoided the contact, the nature of which can be dangerous

[LeeF]

Just now, phiggins said:

Agree with that. Just think Ackers was lucky that’s all. As a challenge, I actually have more issue with Croft’s on O’Brien. I don’t think he intended to tip him, but it was sly and he could easily have avoided the contact, the nature of which can be dangerous

I don’t recall the Croft one. Those are difficult to judge in real time

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, LeeF said:

It was an appropriate response to your daft posts

As I thought, no answer.