Fri 4th Oct: SL SF: Hull KR v Warrington Wolves KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Gates1]

Good game.  Good to see Hull KR in the final, adds some interest to it in my view.

 

A system that forces a referee to take a guess is clearly floored.

 

Find (Pinocchio) Burgess to be a bit of a tool and comes across as been a bit dumb really.  Be a shame if the ref has a bit of bias the other way in the final when faced with a 50/50.

Edited October 4 by Gates1

[Gates1]

Good game.  Good to see Hull KR in the final, adds some interest to it in my view.

 

A system that forces a referee to take a guess is clearly floored.

 

Find Burgess to be a bit of a tool and comes across as been a bit dumb really.  Be a shame if the ref has a bit of bias the other way in the final when faced with a 50/50.

[Wilderspoolmemories]

43 minutes ago, Click said:

Yes, I heard Sam Burgess's comments on it, there was a whole conversation about that earlier in the thread. 

I don't know why the ref sent it up as a try rather than no try. Personally I like to give benefit of the doubt to the ref and say his TJ said he thought it was a try. 

I honestly don't have much of a problem with it overall, the replays didn't conclusively say it was a try or not a try, so it was clearly close and usually benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. 

Which in effect is totally wrong. 

Surely any benefit of doubt should go to the defending team? We have to be sure that a try has been scored to award a try, not just think that one might have been scored. 

If we are going to continue to award false scores that end a teams season, then we are going to continue to make a mockery of our sport. 

 

[Padge]

16 minutes ago, Hopie said:

The Laws of the game don't say that. 

They say if you don't see the grounding that isn't a reason in itself to rule no try, they say if you don't see the grounding you can rule try or no try. 

For completeness, if the "benefit of the doubt to the attacker" applied to refs call, all try decisions would be sent up as a try.

That isn't what it says, it says

Referee unsighted The Referee should not disallow a try because they were not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.

It does not say you can give or not give it, it says you should not disallow it. If he sends it up as no try he is disallowing it, which the Laws say he cannot do.

It is unbeliviably simple to understand and I don't know why so many people find it hard to grasp.

Edited October 4 by Padge

[StandOffHalf]

15 minutes ago, Hopie said:

The Laws of the game don't say that. 

They say if you don't see the grounding that isn't a reason in itself to rule no try, they say if you don't see the grounding you can rule try or no try. 

For completeness, if the "benefit of the doubt to the attacker" applied to refs call, all try decisions would be sent up as a try.

Yes, it is a jump to take the wording to the Law about lack of seeing not being a reason to disallow a try, and to say therefore that unsighted groundings should be awarded on-field.

[StandOffHalf]

15 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

Good game.  Good to see Hull KR in the final, adds some interest to it in my view.

 

A system that forces a referee to take a guess is clearly floored.

 

Find (Pinocchio) Burgess to be a bit of a tool and comes across as been a bit dumb really.  Be a shame if the ref has a bit of bias the other way in the final when faced with a 50/50.

You put it rather harshly, but I kind of thought the same.

He came across as a bit inane compared to Hall's measured words.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Click said:

I think his kicking game has been alright, but this is a a huge game, and I expected/wanted to see more from him ball-in-hand. He seems to have kicked it a few times when KR had the numbers advantage and didn't run it.

Unlike Williams who I have been impressed with, who seems to put his heart into every run, carry, pass that he attempts.

Lewis was playing to Peters’ cautious game plan tonight in Michella’s absence. Mikey playing the percentages rather than risking a play in a match like this is a measure of his progression as a half, rather than a sign of weakness.

Williams is the best half in the comp, and will be for a while. But given how far he’s progressed in the last 12 months alone I’m confident that Lewis will be a better player than him at the same age.

From an England perspective I don’t think it matters today. Williams can organise a side around the park, and I think Lewis is the best fit alongside him. If anything I think what tonight showed is that England don’t need Smith, because Williams can bring anything he brings and a lot more. 

[Padge]

5 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Yes, it is a jump to take the wording to the Law about lack of seeing not being a reason to disallow a try, and to say therefore that unsighted groundings should be awarded on-field.

If its an unsighted grounding then its a try.

 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Padge said:

That isn't what it says, it says

Referee unsighted The Referee should not disallow a try because they were not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.

It does not say you can give or not give it, it says you should not disallow it. If he sends it up as no try he is disallowing it, which the Laws say he cannot do.

It is unbeliviably simple to understand and I don't know why so many people find it hard to grasp.

I do find this flawed. Because at times we see stuff like tonight go up as no try. But that wouldn't make sense because if unsighted it should be try, and if they send it to as no try, the ref is saying he saw it not grounded. And that shouldn't need a second opinion. So that isn't the method they use.

Silverwood was critical of the decision on twitter. It's a shame Ian Smith is no longer on there i believe as he always offered good perspective and explanations on process on stuff like this.

Edited October 4 by Dave T

[Click]

38 minutes ago, Padge said:

The Laws of the game say that he should, explicity written in.

That is one explanation - but I am not inside the ref's head so I can't explicitly say why he made the decision he did.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, tjhrads93 said:

To sum up my season as a Wire fan.

I have not been involved in this forum this previous 2-3 years as much as I had been.

No reason as to this forum; I’m delighted to see a lot of familiar names.

I just felt that I had not watched as much RL as I should have been; particularly to make my comments relevant when my knowledge of the game is that of a late adopter.

I must admit; I’m an England RL fan and then a Wire fan then a wider RL fan (though I want the game to go well); that is just the way I came into the game.

Warrington struggling (and being turgid to watch frankly) had affected the amount of games I have watched over the prior two years. Particularly as my first love has always been man city; and having a wife (funnily enough the marriage has been exactly over the last two years) means choosing one’s battle.

This year I have really enjoyed watching us, we are executing the basics and frankly the game as a whole has been more enjoyable this year in my opinion; game feels in a good spot and I feel reinvested in the game (my wife also quite likes Vaughney which has helped)!

Hope to comment next week and into the internationals; and I hope everyone is doing well!

Good stuff Wire and good luck KR

 

I think Wire have been great this season, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Burgess will move them on even further next year. 

Tonight’s game was a proper play-off match. Real intensity. Wire threw the kitchen sink at Rovers in the last 15 minutes and I think any other side would have buckled. Those are the sort of periods where being at home does seem to make a difference, and I reckon Warrington would’ve won at your place. 

Been a really good season all-in I think. Tomorrow’s semi is another great story. The best team in the comp against a side who have been playing knock-out rugby for 18 weeks now, surprising everyone. And a local derby in front of 20,000 to boot.

If people can’t enjoy rugby league this season, then they should probably choose another sport eh. 

[WN83]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

Lewis was playing to Peters’ cautious game plan tonight in Michella’s absence. Mikey playing the percentages rather than risking a play in a match like this is a measure of his progression as a half, rather than a sign of weakness.

Williams is the best half in the comp, and will be for a while. But given how far he’s progressed in the last 12 months alone I’m confident that Lewis will be a better player than him at the same age.

From an England perspective I don’t think it matters today. Williams can organise a side around the park, and I think Lewis is the best fit alongside him. If anything I think what tonight showed is that England don’t need Smith, because Williams can bring anything he brings and a lot more. 

Williams doesn't have a long kicking game of any note, so that isn't strictly true (but I do agree that in other areas he's in front). I thought Lewis and Williams had off nights tonight tbh but I would pick them as the pairing for that first test unless it is guaranteed to be played in torrential rain. If that is the case, Smith is the man to try and play the conditions and get in to that game of percentages by kicking Samoa deep in to their half. Other than that I just don't think we can ignore the form Williams and Lewis have been in and Lewis has developed his kicking game in recent months. 

[StandOffHalf]

1 minute ago, Padge said:

If its an unsighted grounding then its a try.

 

If a grounding is likely, send it up a try. If it looks to be held up, send it up a No Try.

That's why we have a VR. Referring one that looks to be held up but which might have touched a line as a No Try means that you avoid howlers.

An on-field referral is not a disallowing, as the VR can then have the final say.

[Click]

9 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Lewis was playing to Peters’ cautious game plan tonight in Michella’s absence. Mikey playing the percentages rather than risking a play in a match like this is a measure of his progression as a half, rather than a sign of weakness.

Williams is the best half in the comp, and will be for a while. But given how far he’s progressed in the last 12 months alone I’m confident that Lewis will be a better player than him at the same age.

From an England perspective I don’t think it matters today. Williams can organise a side around the park, and I think Lewis is the best fit alongside him. If anything I think what tonight showed is that England don’t need Smith, because Williams can bring anything he brings and a lot more. 

I mean, that is one way to excuse him not having a stand out performance. 

He didn't have the greatest game and that is fine - You don't need to excuse it by saying he was actually just playing to the coaches gameplan.

[StandOffHalf]

7 minutes ago, Padge said:

If its an unsighted grounding then its a try.

 

An unsighted grounding is where a player dives over and the ref sees the ball on the ground after initially being unsighted.

This was not one of those.

[Worzel]

1 minute ago, WN83 said:

Williams doesn't have a long kicking game of any note, so that isn't strictly true (but I do agree that in other areas he's in front). I thought Lewis and Williams had off nights tonight tbh but I would pick them as the pairing for that first test unless it is guaranteed to be played in torrential rain. If that is the case, Smith is the man to try and play the conditions and get in to that game of percentages by kicking Samoa deep in to their half. Other than that I just don't think we can ignore the form Williams and Lewis have been in and Lewis has developed his kicking game in recent months. 

Lewis has a good long kicking game, so they fit well together. That’s been one of his key areas of his progress this year, coached by Joe Ford, Mike’s other son. Hull KR won a 10 metres per set advantage from long kicks and the kick chase tonight. Probably a key factor in the result. 

[Click]

2 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

If a grounding is likely, send it up a try. If it looks to be held up, send it up a No Try.

That's why we have a VR. Referring one that looks to be held up but which might have touched a line as a No Try means that you avoid howlers.

An on-field referral is not a disallowing, as the VR can then have the final say.

And the referee I would assume thought that grounding was likely on the first attempt.

I don't disagree with him personally, even with replays.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Click said:

A 75% season conversion rate is not anything to shout about. 

No but isn't HKR in the low 60's?

[WN83]

As much as I dislike the current system, it feels like that tonight gets given under a few different options open to us. Go down the NRL route and the ref gives it on the field and I still don't think they over turn it. Send it up with no decision and go with benefit of the doubt and it's probably given as well. They'd have to send it up with no decision attached and have no benefit of the doubt for the attacking team for it to be turned down. Ultimately it just feels a bad call on the field but maybe the ref or touch judge got a split second view that the cameras missed (doubtful IMO). 

[Worzel]

Just now, Click said:

I mean, that is one way to excuse him not having a stand out performance. 

He didn't have the greatest game and that is fine - You don't need to excuse it by saying he was actually just playing to the coaches gameplan.

I watch Rovers week-in, week-out. We play a very defined system, with Minchella as the pivot. Tonight’s tactics were the right response to losing him for one match and having a second row fill his spot.

If we were missing Mini for longer than one game, we’d do something different to adapt the system and you’d see more proactivity from the halves. Watch May tonight too, same story. It was a game plan, for one game, and we won the game. 

This is one of Peters’ key differences as a coach from the Smith era. The detail around planning is off the charts, Rovers’ sets are almost robotic. 

[Click]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No but isn't HKR in the low 60's?

Zero idea, but anyone that claimed the game was in the bag because of a 75% conversion rate is crazy or stupid.

[StandOffHalf]

4 minutes ago, Click said:

And the referee I would assume thought that grounding was likely on the first attempt.

I don't disagree with him personally, even with replays.

I think he was just too eager to say Try. I think it comes down to that. He didn't think which of the two scenarios was more likely.

There's no controversy if he says No Try and hands it upstairs.

[WN83]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Lewis has a good long kicking game, so they fit well together. That’s been one of his key areas of his progress this year, coached by Joe Ford, Mike’s other son. Hull KR won a 10 metres per set advantage from long kicks and the kick chase tonight. Probably a key factor in the result. 

It's improved for sure and as I say, I would pick those 2 but it is the one area (the long kicking game) that Smith is well clear of the other two. Personally I'd only be desperate to call on it in really poor weather, as I mentioned because the Samoans won't want to face a combo of Williams and Lewis on a dry (ish) track. Good problems to have anyway and that area can be an advantage for us IMO. 

[Padge]

People seem to be confusing different scenarios here.

Ref sees a try scored but didn't see the ball grounded, therefore he awards a try, even though the ball may have not been grounded, benefit of the doubt.

Ref sees a player held up but wants to ensure he didn't miss a grounding sends up as no try, he has no reason initially to award a try but players and maybe other officials may have a strong enough case to cause for the ref to get it checked or he may just want to be sure he didn't miss something.

They sound similar but are quite different.

Its the same way they often check for off-side from kicks and in touch for close corner calls. It tends to go up as a try unless another official has doubts.

Its bloody simple. Its a logical system, just take the emotion out.

 

 

[Click]

Just now, StandOffHalf said:

I think he was just too eager to say Try. I think it comes down to that. He didn't think which of the two scenarios was more likely.

There's no controversy if he says No Try and hands it upstairs.

Why would he be too eager to say Try? In most situations like that the referee regularly says "No Try" but he or one of other officials obviously thought it was a try.

Of course he thought which of the two scenarios was more likely, it's his job.