Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:19 pm  

Fully wrote:

I'd rather get rid of the one who contributes little to the forum and doesn't offer constructive posts but instead resorts to petty and childish insults.

But that's just me....

yea thats just you

do it then , it just shows you care as much about cas at the present board do.

we need a siege mentality not this ra ra poop

bye, ive banned mesen from this crap

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:22 pm  

itsalldarntlane wrote:

yea thats just you

do it then , it just shows you care as much about cas at the present board do.

we need a siege mentality not this ra ra poop

bye, ive banned mesen from this crap

No pleeeeeease, don't do it.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:50 pm  

tb wrote:

A conspiracy, orchestrated at Red Hall, and implemented by cheating match officials to make us lose the game, come what may?

Jeez: have we all turned into some horrible amalgam of Starbug and the worst of the Widnes fans immediately after the franchise decisions???

atotd, the reason we lost is clear in the pattern of the game: in both halves we came out scored two quick tries (while failing to convert one) but couldn't build on that and put the game to bed – instead, in the second 20 of both halves, we let Rovers back into the game and they scored two tries each half, and converted all four goal attempts.


and fwiw: my opinion on the controversial VR decisions:

• the Ainscough one was always going to be "no try" – he grounded the ball short, and while I initially thought momentum carried him and the ball over, it was clear that the ball bounced up and went flying away while he slid over

• the "step over" – I'd have disallowed that for an improper ptb (in fact no attempt to play the ball), but, again ateotd, I'm not a ref

• the "knock on" – a clear 50-50 decision that could have gone either way but the VR ruled that he got a hand to the ball before it hit the ground, and it's as difficult to argue conclusively against that as it would be to argue conclusively against it if he'd gone the other way and ruled a knock-on.



Oh – and seven minutes from the end? There was time there for us to win it, if we'd shown the form and intensity we showed in the opening of both halves at the end of the game. It never really looked likely though.

I remember standing on the Railway end with about 17 minutes to go when we were still 20-12 up and thinking, not "we can go on and put this to bed" but "there's still plenty of time for us to lose this". And we did.


Which was disappointing.

Which, in general go to the attacking team as benefit of the doubt.

The problem with the illegal play the ball is that if a ref decides to disallow a try, which apart from that one part was a good score, then we have to go back to insisting that a PTB is struck with the boot. We cannot have a rule that allows illegal PTB's to be overlooked apart from when one leads to a try, that would be ridiculous.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:09 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Which, in general go to the attacking team as benefit of the doubt.

The problem with the illegal play the ball is that if a ref decides to disallow a try, which apart from that one part was a good score, then we have to go back to insisting that a PTB is struck with the boot. We cannot have a rule that allows illegal PTB's to be overlooked apart from when one leads to a try, that would be ridiculous.

No it wouldn't because Bentham asked for it to be checked, and in the rule book it was an illegal play the ball so if the ref asked for it checking and it's clearly an illegal play the ball, it should be no try penalty defence.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:27 am  

Surely all Saturday night proved was that either you need Video Replays at all games to enable a level playing field.

Based on the contraversial tries alone without the VR none of them would have been given.

1. If Bentham thought the play the ball was played incorrectly without the VR would he have penalised HKR? - Actually what annoy's me most of all with this is if you watch the game you can blatantly here Bentham shouting at goldy to play the ball with his foot!
2. Ainscough - This wouldn't have been given anyway!
3. Watts - This most certainly wouldn't have been given.

The deciding factor is as a sport do the clubs/RFL have to dig deep to enable VR at all games, or should they just shut up whinging and get on with it knowing that this will happen, when only two games a week (three if Catalan are at home) have VR, or should we do away full stop.

slightly O/T I personally don't think the officating at matches has improved greatly since they went full time!

[tb]

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:44 am  

rover49 wrote:

Which, in general go to the attacking team as benefit of the doubt.

The problem with the illegal play the ball is that if a ref decides to disallow a try, which apart from that one part was a good score, then we have to go back to insisting that a PTB is struck with the boot. We cannot have a rule that allows illegal PTB's to be overlooked apart from when one leads to a try, that would be ridiculous.

tbh, I was under the impression we had done: but I suspect its like many 'tightening up' interpretations: we insisted on it for a bit, then let it go again …

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:25 am  

Junglefever wrote:

Surely all Saturday night proved was that either you need Video Replays at all games to enable a level playing field.

Based on the contraversial tries alone without the VR none of them would have been given.

1. If Bentham thought the play the ball was played incorrectly without the VR would he have penalised HKR? - Actually what annoy's me most of all with this is if you watch the game you can blatantly here Bentham shouting at goldy to play the ball with his foot!
2. Ainscough - This wouldn't have been given anyway!
3. Watts - This most certainly wouldn't have been given.

The deciding factor is as a sport do the clubs/RFL have to dig deep to enable VR at all games, or should they just shut up whinging and get on with it knowing that this will happen, when only two games a week (three if Catalan are at home) have VR, or should we do away full stop.

slightly O/T I personally don't think the officating at matches has improved greatly since they went full time!

To me, if Watts is allowed to drop the ball forward and be awarded a try just because they think he grounded it, then what is stopping an attacker 3 meters out from throwing the ball over the heads of the defence and then grounding it as it comes down. half a meter forward, 3 meters forward who cares? Isn't this the same thing? Its the most ridiculous try since George Mann scored for saints by heading the ball out of his own hands and diving on it over the try line!

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:50 am  

who needs flankers? wrote:

To me, if Watts is allowed to drop the ball forward and be awarded a try just because they think he grounded it, then what is stopping an attacker 3 meters out from throwing the ball over the heads of the defence and then grounding it as it comes down. half a meter forward, 3 meters forward who cares? Isn't this the same thing? Its the most ridiculous try since George Mann scored for saints by heading the ball out of his own hands and diving on it over the try line!

That one actually caused a change to be made to the rules, outlawing that particular practice. It was quite a simple one for me though. A player loses control of the ball and is in a situation where he cannot possibly regain full control of it. When the ball comes into contact with the ground, that completes the knock-on. I'm pretty sure anybody would agree that in the field of play that's would've been given as a knock-on.

For what it's worth I don't think we got the rub, but the players shouldn't have let that get them down. Neither should we have dropped so much ball in their 20m area during the game, or defended their kicks so poorly in our own in-goal area.

The last pass for one of Ainscough's tries in the second half looked a bit suspect on the replay; but I was bang in line with the one in the first half and it was flat. Also with try where people have claimed Cas obstructed - the HKR player tackled the dummy runner which is a defensive mistake and therefore not an obstruction.

If (as somebody claimed earlier) incorrect play the balls are rife in SL at the moment (there was no foot-ball contact in the last PTB before KR's 1st and 4th tries) then overlooking them in VR decisions is not the way to resolve the issue. The message that has now been sent to all players in the game though is that it's not necessary to even attempt to play the ball correctly.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:59 am  

Got to agree Murells try should not have stood 100% Watts simply stepped over the ball, the rules were changed from having to put your foot on the ball to attempting to put your foot on the ball if i recall correctly. Either way for me no effort was made at all to get his foot anywhere near the ball. Watts try was very contentious but much more of a 50/50 personally I wouldn't have given it but I can understand why it was given, clearly its not the same as throwing the ball forward and then regathering, he fumbled the ball and is therefore entitled to make an attempt to regather it/ground it, its a bit like scoring from a kick, how many times have we seen a try being given with just a finger nail getting to the ball, if the kick was in field and a player brushed it with his hand and it carried on rolling then a knock on would be given. As I've said in another thread these things generally even themselves out over the course of a season and they weren't the reason you lost, that was down to your ball control.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:55 am  

Uptoncat wrote:

Got to agree Murells try should not have stood 100% Watts simply stepped over the ball, the rules were changed from having to put your foot on the ball to attempting to put your foot on the ball if i recall correctly. Either way for me no effort was made at all to get his foot anywhere near the ball. Watts try was very contentious but much more of a 50/50 personally I wouldn't have given it but I can understand why it was given, clearly its not the same as throwing the ball forward and then regathering, he fumbled the ball and is therefore entitled to make an attempt to regather it/ground it, its a bit like scoring from a kick, how many times have we seen a try being given with just a finger nail getting to the ball, if the kick was in field and a player brushed it with his hand and it carried on rolling then a knock on would be given. As I've said in another thread these things generally even themselves out over the course of a season and they weren't the reason you lost, that was down to your ball control.

Not really. You are allowed to kick the ball forward. You can't drop it forward. In the final 30 seconds of the game, Sarge knocked on by trying to gather up a ball but in bringing into his body the ball went forward and so quite rightly it was a knock on. If he had done this over the line, it would have been a try! Where is the consistancy in that?