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

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

As I thought, no answer.

I did answer but you don’t seem to like it despite your original post being a daft one

[JohnM]

7 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

I missed that. It seems so out of character, too. What did he say, if "say" is quite the right word? 

In the words of Johnny Mercer, "Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive" 

[Chrispmartha]

45 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 

It didn’t need a back view, the view he looked at showed his hand also in touch and him dropping the ball.

[Chrispmartha]

43 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 !

Maybe the ref who was directly looking at it had a better view than you in the pub?

Just a thought.

Although im not particularly in disagreement about ref call needing to go.

[Chrispmartha]

13 minutes ago, 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

Not sure how often those (croft) get cards, it wasn’t deliberate he just messed it up.

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I missed that. It seems so out of character, too. What did he say, if "say" is quite the right word? 

In the words of Johnny Mercer, "Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive" 

Something about overalls.

[dkw]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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?

He was quiting the game because of it, but now he wants it to stay the same....because "consistency". Ridiculous hypocrisy. 

[RigbyLuger]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Something about overalls.

Wonder how he'd deal with a stakeholder saying similar about his (non-RL) business.

[phiggins]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Not sure how often those (croft) get cards, it wasn’t deliberate he just messed it up.

That is true about the intent of most dangerous tackles to be fair.

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

He was quiting the game because of it, but now he wants it to stay the same....because "consistency". Ridiculous hypocrisy. 

The thing is it’s obviously been a directive to be less harsh on these tackles, watch all the games this round and you will see consistency.

so Harry has got what he wanted, but because he feels Leigh were badly done to hes singing a different tune.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, phiggins said:

That is true about the intent of most dangerous tackles to be fair.

It is but as I say it’s pretty rare for those to be cards.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Quite correct Dunny, but what amazes me is all those who championed the rulings in the first couple of weeks are keeping quiet about what they were spouting previously.

I'm just catching up one the game, and seeing some of the controversy for the first time. I agree with the two disallowed tries I've seen, pretty basic tbh. 

After 45mins though there was a high tackle from Ackers that imo should have been yellow. It was interesting to hear Dave Woods saying that it seems that common sense has prevailed now. In reality, that means we have just gone back to how it was. And for me, that's wrong. We've either decided to take it seriously or we haven't. Ackers made no attempt to tackle low, hitting him fairly and squarely on the jaw. 

But now we are just hearing refs justify it. It does rather seem we've abandoned the new protocol tbh. That is where the RFL referee team deserves criticism. 

[Dave T]

Interesting to see Sky have a win predictor, at 48 minutes, with the score 16 nil, Leeds had only a 1% chance of winning versus 97% for Leigh. 

Now, it feels like there is some calibration needed, but it does really show how much Leigh blew that match. 

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The thing is it’s obviously been a directive to be less harsh on these tackles, watch all the games this round and you will see consistency.

so Harry has got what he wanted, but because he feels Leigh were badly done to hes singing a different tune.

I actually think that's unfair - I don't agree with too many of Harry's views, but the likes of him were aggressibeky shot down for complaining about the clamp down, so I think his complaints are now valid. The likes of Harry were told this was the new world and we had to change. But let's be honest, the RFL have bottled it yet again. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

12 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Bias is one thing, implying the refs are cheating is another

Is it though? It’s basically watching it in the pub with an obsessively one eyed fan. I would expect them to go far beyond implying. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I actually think that's unfair - I don't agree with too many of Harry's views, but the likes of him were aggressibeky shot down for complaining about the clamp down, so I think his complaints are now valid. The likes of Harry were told this was the new world and we had to change. But let's be honest, the RFL have bottled it yet again. 

The point is, Harry was complaining that they were being too harsh, now for whatever reason the RFL have ‘bottled it’ I agree, however surely Harry should be celebrating this fact? But because Leigh we’re involved he’s doing the opposite.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The point is, Harry was complaining that they were being too harsh, now for whatever reason the RFL have ‘bottled it’ I agree, however surely Harry should be celebrating this fact? But because Leigh we’re involved he’s doing the opposite.

Beibg overly pedantic to scorenpoints. After being told for weeks this is how it is and move with the times, it is entirely fair to them complain when it turns out we're not gonna bother at all and everything he was told for weeks was BS. 

The issue here isn't Harry. This is why fans get peed off. And I don't include Derek in that, he's a drunken tool. 

Edited March 9 by Dave T

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Beibg overly pedantic to scorenpoints. After being told for weeks this is how it is and move with the times, it is entirely fair to them complain when it turns out we're not gonna bother at all and everything he was told for weeks was BS. 

The issue here isn't Harry. This is why fans get peed off. And I don't include Derek in that, he's a drunken tool. 

Happens every time new protocols are brought in, It was always going to settle down after a few games.

Rohan Smith’s presser is interesting, he’s basically saying that it’s created a situation where players, fans and coaches are now concentrating too much on wether it is or isn’t a card, i agree, you see far more players complaining to the ref, fans screaming for cards after every tackle etc.

[Harry Stottle]

40 minutes ago, dkw said:

He was quiting the game because of it, but now he wants it to stay the same....because "consistency". Ridiculous hypocrisy. 

How in earth can you lot who were condoning the the actions refs were taking, suddenly about face, you either want action taking for head tackles or you don't, you are every bit as hypocritical as you claim I am.

Where is the link to the law changes or again are you lying, 3rd request.

Edited March 9 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

How in earth can you lot who were condoning the the actions refs were taking, suddenly about face, you either want action taking for head tackles or you don't, you are every bit as hypocritical as you claim I am.

 

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm just catching up one the game, and seeing some of the controversy for the first time. I agree with the two disallowed tries I've seen, pretty basic tbh. 

After 45mins though there was a high tackle from Ackers that imo should have been yellow. It was interesting to hear Dave Woods saying that it seems that common sense has prevailed now. In reality, that means we have just gone back to how it was. And for me, that's wrong. We've either decided to take it seriously or we haven't. Ackers made no attempt to tackle low, hitting him fairly and squarely on the jaw. 

But now we are just hearing refs justify it. It does rather seem we've abandoned the new protocol tbh. That is where the RFL referee team deserves criticism. 

Thank you Dave, I take it you have not heard of a change in tge rules  and the lad from Workington is just naking it up.

[dkw]

How exactly is me having an opinion a lie? 

[JohnM]

49 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

What's this  "absolute overall" he's wearing?

Leigh came second. Get over it.

Edited March 9 by JohnM

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How in earth can you lot who were condoning the the actions refs were taking, suddenly about face, you either want action taking for head tackles or you don't, you are every bit as hypocritical as you claim I am.

Where is the link to the law changes or again are you lying, 3rd request.

There doesn’t need to be a law change for the refs to have been told to interpret them differently.

The refs have been consistent if you watch all the games so far this round.

[Harry Stottle]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But let's be honest, the RFL have bottled it yet again

Have they or was this Mr Kendalls deliberation, still awaiting confirmation on the rules being more lenient as is being claimed.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

How exactly is me having an opinion a lie? 

Quote you

"Yet all of a sudden when the refs have obviously pulled it back now under instruction'

That does not imply an opinion, does it?