Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:32 am  

jonh wrote:

Absolutely nothing wrong with that challenge. It is a physical game. If an opponent is there to be hit legally you hit them. The fact is had Sam not reacted when standing up it would have been play on.

It is the role of the defence particularly Props to hurt the opposition ball carrier. There was no punch, no contact with the head. Amor was just going in to hurt Sam but not illegally.

Switch it on its head would you be happy if Barba was in that position would you be happy for one of our guys just to put his hands on him to affect the tackle? I personally wouldn't.

Mate, you've been talking some utter crap of late but this takes the biscuit. You mention the word legally in your post. Maybe you should go away and actually read up on what constitutes legally. A swinging arm with your hand balled into a fist is not legal no matter where it hits! If that had been the other way round you would have been slating our player for lack of discipline. You're becoming an absolute joke of a poster. Do us all a favour and give yourself some time off. Please.

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:12 am  

muttywhitedog wrote:

From who? If it is from Ganson, then one of these clowns isn't following the directive on what constitutes a loose carry.

Clubb over the line with ball sort of dislodged from a sort of loose carry - no try

Barba over the line with ball sort of dislodged from a sort of loose carry - try

The only order that they could possibly both be following is "Screw Wigan over in any 50/50 decision".

You may say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:57 am  

I've been making similar comments about the officials for a while now. Due to their poor quality the players don't respect them, leading to scrappy games where the players try it on with the ref or try to take the law into their own hands. After that, it's a downward spiral IMO.

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:39 pm  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

I've been making similar comments about the officials for a while now. Due to their poor quality the players don't respect them, leading to scrappy games where the players try it on with the ref or try to take the law into their own hands. After that, it's a downward spiral IMO.

I'd love to know what measures are taken to deal with incompetent or bias (or both!) referees.

If a player puts a toe out of line, he's usually off for a very public humiliation at the disciplinary committee. Same for a coach - he utters a word of dissatisfaction, and he could be publically reprimanded and/or fined.

But what happens when the refs screw up, particularly given that it could cost a team a Cup Final? There surely must be some comeuppance for some of the performances we've seen of late, especially the video refs, who now seem to drop at least one gonad every game. But if it happens at all, it's always behind closed doors ... which is a real let-off for them.

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:13 pm  

jonh wrote:

I had no problem with the shot on Tomkins. What is a tackler supposed to do in that situation? The penalty however for me was the right call for the push which Sam reacted to when trying to stand to play the ball.

Cummings generally tends to have some very strange observations and interpretations every week, just like the refs he lacks any consistency.

I've got no issue with Amor making his presence felt, I thought a penalty was the correct decision as he went down with a clenched fist and first contact was with his fist. He punched Sam on the shoulder.


As for the Barba try this is where having to have 'conclusive evidence to overturn the on field decision' is not working. I've said it time and time again, just let the VR make a decision. The reason Clubbs was a no try was because that was the infield call, Barba's was given because it went up as a try.

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:12 am  

Cruncher wrote:

I'd love to know what measures are taken to deal with incompetent or bias (or both!) referees.

Pretty much nothing. There are a lack of referees already, meaning mediocre and downright awful performances cannot be subject to bans/downgrading, because there'd not be enough to cover the next round of fixtures.

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:32 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

Mate, you've been talking some utter crap of late but this takes the biscuit. You mention the word legally in your post. Maybe you should go away and actually read up on what constitutes legally. A swinging arm with your hand balled into a fist is not legal no matter where it hits! If that had been the other way round you would have been slating our player for lack of discipline. You're becoming an absolute joke of a poster. Do us all a favour and give yourself some time off. Please.

This "swinging arm" quote does make me smile. How is a player supposed to affect a tackle without swinging his arm?


As for the penalty it was not given until the pushing match when they stand up.


If a prop has a free shot of one of the oppositions creative players he is in my opinion letting his team down if he doesn't take it. Just because it is one of our players on the receiving end of it doesn't suddenly make me think it is wrong.

As for the rest of your rant I actually don't mind sometimes conceding a penalty or 2, it goes with the style we have chosen to play. Consistently giving away penalties when we have the ball flopping on tackled players and penalties on the 4th or 5th tackle though are ridiculous, especially when they are unforced. Think on 2 occasions against Saints we gave away penalties off dominant tackles. Teams running hard fighting for a quick play the ball winning penalties is credit to them, giving away unforced penalties through being lazy or stupid is another matter though.

I await further ranting.....

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:37 am  

Trainman wrote:

As for the Barba try this is where having to have 'conclusive evidence to overturn the on field decision' is not working. I've said it time and time again, just let the VR make a decision. The reason Clubbs was a no try was because that was the infield call, Barba's was given because it went up as a try.

I liked the idea of the initial ref's call prior to sending the try or no try to the video ref, but as you say it isn't working. If it is a tight call they take the easy way out and go with the ref.

From when I have seen it in Union the ref doesn't make a call and simply asks, for any reason not to award the try. It is then decided on from that point.

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:46 am  

jonh wrote:

I liked the idea of the initial ref's call prior to sending the try or no try to the video ref, but as you say it isn't working. If it is a tight call they take the easy way out and go with the ref.

From when I have seen it in Union the ref doesn't make a call and simply asks, for any reason not to award the try. It is then decided on from that point.

union has two calls 1 any reason i cannot award the try 1 Try yes or no, subtly different, also the onfield ref views the footage with the VR and can over rule

Re: Hicks & Bentham : Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:24 am  

jonh wrote:

I had no problem with the shot on Tomkins. What is a tackler supposed to do in that situation? The penalty however for me was the right call for the push which Sam reacted to when trying to stand to play the ball.

Cummings generally tends to have some very strange observations and interpretations every week, just like the refs he lacks any consistency.

For me did swing his arm and was a penalty.

Sam Burgess did that a year or 2 ago and got penalised for it but the hit was more ferocious it was still deemed illegal due to the movement of the arm.