Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:05 pm  

Gansons explanation is a load rubbish!

Coaches fume at any player who gets left on the ground as the ball is played, it leaves one less player in the defensive line which has Coaching staff tearing their hair out.
Laying around in the ruck area has virtually no positive outcome for the defensive side, unlike leaving your hands in or feigning being caught up in the tackle which are tactics employed by many clubs.

Consider this, players are taught and teams are coached to create an overload situation where more attackers can target one side or other where the defence has got its numbers wrong. The defensive split is everything in the modern game, teams play to certain points on the field where it puts the defence in two minds about the numbers. Half backs and hookers are immensely astute at recognising and exploiting a defence that's got it wrong.

So leaving a defender laying around at the feet of a play the ball is an absolute cardinal sin because one side of the defence is left vulnerable to an overload. There's no need for the 'Ganson remedy' because professional players don't do it by choice, they'd get mullered by the coach. It's unsporting conduct to throw the ball at a prone defender, play the ball on his head and wave imaginary yellow cards in the face of the Referee, leave that cynical type of behaviour to soccer players.

[PopTart]

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:10 pm  

You are right, except it still happens.
If the player is in the way at the play the ball, whether it causes a problem to the defence or not it still impedes what the acting halfback can do, so is a penalty.

I agree it's unsporting to appeal for a yellow card, and I think it is effectively the same to throw the ball at a player that is possibly in the way, but it is still a penalty.
Hull didn't get any more advantage out of the ball being passed at the player than they actually deserved......it was a penalty.

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:38 pm  

PopTart wrote:

You are right, except it still happens.
If the player is in the way at the play the ball, whether it causes a problem to the defence or not it still impedes what the acting halfback can do, so is a penalty.

I agree it's unsporting to appeal for a yellow card, and I think it is effectively the same to throw the ball at a player that is possibly in the way, but it is still a penalty.
Hull didn't get any more advantage out of the ball being passed at the player than they actually deserved......it was a penalty.

That's the point though, unless we find another way to play the game its inevitable that you'll sometimes get a defender caught in the ruck. If we're happy to see unsporting conduct via deliberately throwing the ball at a defender, just because you can and even though he's not actually in the way then it's a reflection on how far we've sunk.

The referees have discretionary powers throughout the whole rule book, they could sort this by using those powers to punish unsporting conduct and kill this cynical element that's crept into the game.

I'd argue that Hull should have been penalised under the above interpretation so the 4 points they got from it were far more than they were entitled to.

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:51 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

That's the point though, unless we find another way to play the game its inevitable that you'll sometimes get a defender caught in the ruck. If we're happy to see unsporting conduct via deliberately throwing the ball at a defender, just because you can and even though he's not actually in the way then it's a reflection on how far we've sunk.

The referees have discretionary powers throughout the whole rule book, they could sort this by using those powers to punish unsporting conduct and kill this cynical element that's crept into the game.

Nailed it.

[PopTart]

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:19 pm  

I agree that if the player is not interfering then it shouldn't be a penalty, but in these cases they could have rolled away and didn't.

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:48 pm  

TBH brough should have had a penalty against him for grabbing the guys head/neck in the tackle anyway.
Where exactly would you expect a player in this scenario to roll away to? By staying where he is he's likely to be impeding less than if he tried to move away in this situation IMO. If Jones had attempted to take up the ball and was impeded then yes a penalty should be awarded- but he threw the ball forward and made no attempt to run the play. Surely in that case the first infringement was the ball being thrown forward. As someone has pointed out at a quick ptb it's sometimes the case that a player is left on the floor- are we going to therefore give a penalty every time- because I'd bet anything if jones hadn't been unsportsmanlike in his approach a penalty wouldn't have been on anyone's minds!

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:44 pm  

I agree with you on Jones. It was a deliberate knock on. Had he chosen to run forward, no doubt he would have "tripped" over Brough.

It is a difficult one, but like a lot of the decisions they are calls based upon a player's actions. Take the Leigh one, where the Leigh player passed to the Cas player. The Cas player was standing in the attacking line. If it becomes the norm that they won't be penalised, players will loiter with their arms in the air, acting all innocent.

Perhaps the way forward is not to give penalties where a player is making a genuine attempt to get out of the way AND it is felt that the player sought the penalty rather than promoting the play. It is similar to where the hooker runs forward knowing a player hasn't got back the ten. It is only an infringement when the player can't resist temptation and tackles the hooker. If he continues to make his way back, it isn't a penalty, however much he is shoved in the back by the hooker.

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:58 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I agree with you on Jones. It was a deliberate knock on. Had he chosen to run forward, no doubt he would have "tripped" over Brough.

It is a difficult one, but like a lot of the decisions they are calls based upon a player's actions. Take the Leigh one, where the Leigh player passed to the Cas player. The Cas player was standing in the attacking line. If it becomes the norm that they won't be penalised, players will loiter with their arms in the air, acting all innocent.

Perhaps the way forward is not to give penalties where a player is making a genuine attempt to get out of the way AND it is felt that the player sought the penalty rather than promoting the play. It is similar to where the hooker runs forward knowing a player hasn't got back the ten. It is only an infringement when the player can't resist temptation and tackles the hooker. If he continues to make his way back, it isn't a penalty, however much he is shoved in the back by the hooker.

Yeah but then you have an incident like Huby in our game, tackles from behind & then a fast ptb means he is automatically offside. Think he should be allowed to keep still if getting up would impede attacker

[PopTart]

Re: Unsporting conduct : Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:35 pm  

My comments were only about the Wakefield game.
The incident in Huddersfield was just ridiculous.

Again I'd agree with the roll away being given the benefit of the doubt but players don't do that. They roll off the player and try to get onside. That effectively impedes the attacker.
If you are beaten in the ruck you need to roll off the quickest way and if that puts you out of play that is your fault.

Re: Unsporting conduct : Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:11 am  

I think that if the player impedes the play of the ball or the dummy half being able to collect the ball then it should be a penalty for interference. I also think it should be a penalty if the ball is passed backwards into a player who is in an offside position. However if the ball is passed forward into a player then it should be a penalty against the player who has passed the ball.

(I think that makes sense)