Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:51 am  

The way to get rid of Tetevano is to tell him he won’t play again and as a result he will find it harder to get a contract back home after 12/18 months of not playing than if he goes now or at the end of the season. This will work, but we have to stick with it. I suspect he will leave at the end of the season.

Re the QLD cup players, will they be eligible for work permits?

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:55 am  

Here's hoping the club makes a frivolous appeal against Tetevano's ban. The more frivolous the better...

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:13 am  

simonw wrote:

I thought Bentley was keeping his discipline well as the game went on in difficult circumstances for him. Was willing him to get to the end still on the pitch and hoping it could be a pivotal point where he starts to turn a corner so really disappointing to see him walk for such a stupid, petulant moment. Think it would have done him the world of good to get through that game. Tet's was just infuriating. Absolutely stupid especially given the game was long gone by that point.

Best team won and no complaints about the outcome but was absolutely blown away with how bad the referee was from the very start - heavily weighted in Saints favour (was it 4/5 questionable tries?) but I think it was coincidence - he was equally poor for both I thought (Zak's high tackle anyone?). It's a shame because if you take away the scores coming as a direct result of clear refereeing mistakes there could have been a really good game in this. Newman looked fantastic and hungry and how good was that passage of play where they made 80 metres with the off the cuff play? Some positives in there if you dig deep enough. Ultimately another disappointing night for lots of reasons.

Zak’s high tackle after another bizarre call against Leeds are you on about? The one on the young kid?

How did it even get to that moment? Bentley had the ball stripped in a two on one tackle, that was waved as play on resulting in the high tackle and a drop out. Now, I’m no professional referee, but why wasn’t a penalty awarded?

At the end of the day, Leeds were crap and the refereeing of the game even worse.

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:32 am  

Don't remember specifically, there was a high tackle by Zak up near our goal line that went completely unnoticed. May well be the one you're talking about and yep - like a lot of key moments in last night's game, it should never have got to that point - a catalogue of errors from the start. Was just pointing out that I don't think he was biased, he was just terrible throughout. We were just unlucky that I think most fell against us. No bias, just incompetence.

Swoggy Loiner wrote:

Zak’s high tackle after another bizarre call against Leeds are you on about? The one on the young kid?

How did it even get to that moment? Bentley had the ball stripped in a two on one tackle, that was waved as play on resulting in the high tackle and a drop out. Now, I’m no professional referee, but why wasn’t a penalty awarded?

At the end of the day, Leeds were crap and the refereeing of the game even worse.

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:09 am  

I thought the ref was absolutely appalling. Agree, not biased, also agree it did seem the more crucial decisions went against Leeds. However, there were also quite a few the other way. Did it have an effect on the result, no. Did it have an effect on the score, maybe. The tackle by Tetavano was one of the worst I've seen, late and high, surprised Walmsley got nothing though. Bentley, well he's just stupid. Thompson was reactionay, but a trip is a trip, left the ref with no other decision.

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:31 am  

RogerMoore wrote:

surprised Walmsley got nothing though..

I trust you casually raised an eyebrow in response?

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:31 am  

Genuine question. At what point (if any) can you terminate a player's contract for picking up repeated bans, time after time after time?

Is there anything we can actually do or are we stuck with this clown on marquee money, sitting on the sidelines, unavailable for selection the majority of the time.

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:35 am  

FGB wrote:

Genuine question. At what point (if any) can you terminate a player's contract for picking up repeated bans, time after time after time?

Is there anything we can actually do or are we stuck with this clown on marquee money, sitting on the sidelines unavailable ttheo play majority of the time.

You can pay a player off at any time for any purpose. All counts on the cap though

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:37 am  

Swoggy Loiner wrote:

Zak’s high tackle after another bizarre call against Leeds are you on about? The one on the young kid?

How did it even get to that moment? Bentley had the ball stripped in a two on one tackle, that was waved as play on resulting in the high tackle and a drop out. Now, I’m no professional referee, but why wasn’t a penalty awarded?

At the end of the day, Leeds were crap and the refereeing of the game even worse.

From the resulting set he then gave a turnover after Saints had knocked on, and missed a forward pass for the Walmsley try.

In 3 consecutive sets of 6 he managed to get 4 decisions wrong. Must be some sort of record.

Re: RD 16 | St Helens (A) : Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:38 am  

Same prolems as always.

Until we get a better pack that can make hard yards,break some tackles and put in some good ( legal) hits we just aren't going to score enough,no matter who the HBs are.

Mik is still carrying our pack,no real leaders on the field, slow back line mostly ( Newman apart) and rare to see skill or tactics in play.

Will take the coach a season or two to get the team he wants. I think RS is capable of that,but GH might hav to splash some cash.