WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Watts sending off
Re: Watts sending off
Post Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:08 pm
Posted by Isaiah on Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:08 pm
Isaiah User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:06 pm
Posts: 2829
Rugby Raider wrote:
In true Wigan tradition, both Thaler and Hicks don't count on their Salary cap either. :D


Rumour is that Red Hall are subsidising much of their wages, in order to keep them from going to Union or NRL. :WHISPER:
Re: Watts sending off
Post Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:25 pm
Posted by jimmyfivebellies on Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:25 pm
jimmyfivebellies User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:59 pm
Posts: 4154
Location: if only you knew,you'd be amazed
If elbow and forearm weren't promoted as said by the disciplinary panel then how do they come to the conclusion of sending off sufficient! Why can't they say the VR (Bentham) got it wrong
Never mind the bollox,bring on the rugby:)

@Patrickmhullfc
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:58 am
Posted by SirBlighty on Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:58 am
SirBlighty User avatar
Strong-running second rower
Strong-running second rower

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:54 am
Posts: 437
jimmyfivebellies wrote:
If elbow and forearm weren't promoted as said by the disciplinary panel then how do they come to the conclusion of sending off sufficient! Why can't they say the VR (Bentham) got it wrong


Because they never do or never have
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:16 am
Posted by chissitt on Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:16 am
chissitt Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:34 am
Posts: 7056
jimmyfivebellies wrote:
If elbow and forearm weren't promoted as said by the disciplinary panel then how do they come to the conclusion of sending off sufficient! Why can't they say the VR (Bentham) got it wrong

Bentham's a referee, in his opinion it was a sending off thus he was duly sent off, the panel aren't there to judge referees' they're just a panel what are there to administer an appropriate course of action to the player, and just because they say it's sending off sufficient does not mean that Bentham got it wrong or that Watts was innocent.
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:31 am
Posted by mk_fc on Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:31 am
mk_fc User avatar
Eddie Hemmings's Wig
Eddie Hemmings's Wig

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:36 pm
Posts: 221
chissitt wrote:
Bentham's a referee, in his opinion it was a sending off thus he was duly sent off, the panel aren't there to judge referees' they're just a panel what are there to administer an appropriate course of action to the player, and just because they say it's sending off sufficient does not mean that Bentham got it wrong or that Watts was innocent.


He was - but the on the pitch ref was unduly influenced by the VR ... whispering in his ear that it was reckless.
He should not be, and TBH the VR should NOT be allowed to do it. Especially as you don't have the VR in every game.
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:40 am
Posted by Rugby Raider on Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:40 am
Rugby Raider User avatar
Cheeky half-back
Cheeky half-back

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 3:10 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Playing League on The Close
mk_fc wrote:
He was - but he was unduly influenced by the VR ... whispering in his ear that it was reckless.
He should not be, and TBH the VR should NOT be allowed to do it.

I also don't agree with the VR getting involved in these decisions.

There's already no consistency based upon the past few weeks. Watts v Wigan; Burrows's head butt; Gaz's sin bin; McCollom on Ellis at Wembley; Wigan on Gaz's neck at Wembley.

Five incidents all with a VR in attendance, but surprisingly only two players asked to leave the field?
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:53 am
Posted by Wellsy13 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:53 am
Wellsy13 User avatar
Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:42 pm
Posts: 9790
Location: Hull

chissitt wrote:
Bentham's a referee, in his opinion it was a sending off thus he was duly sent off, the panel aren't there to judge referees' they're just a panel what are there to administer an appropriate course of action to the player, and just because they say it's sending off sufficient does not mean that Bentham got it wrong or that Watts was innocent.

Saying it is SOS would suggest the referee got the decision right and Watts isn't innocent.
However, not actually detailing any offence, and directly saying the reason he was sent off didn't happen (I.e. He said the elbow wasn't promoted, which was the reason he was sent off) suggests the referee did get it wrong and Watts is innocent.

They are contradictory. You just can't have them both. It's one or the other.
Image
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:02 pm
Posted by Chris71 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:02 pm
Chris71 User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:46 am
Posts: 4161
Location: Never never land away with the fairies
At the end of the day the VR should only be used for deciding if its a try or not, they should not be deployed as referee in the ear which is clearly what is happening.

If suspected foul play has been committed then use the 'on report' system but Hicks was told to give a red card by the VR (Bentham) and that for me is wrong (regardless of him being right or wrong with his decision) and will destroy the game if this is what is going to happen.

For me I still think the VR is not something we should use in the game unless/until it can be used in all SL games as televised games are clearly not officiated the same as non televised.
I really enjoy long walks especially when they are taken by people I don't like!
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:45 pm
Posted by ccs on Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:45 pm
ccs Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:58 pm
Posts: 2861
... the simplest solution is not to have a VR in any games - let the ref get it right (or wrong) and forget about analysing the game in such minute detail.
The VR (should) only comment on marginal decisions, but their verdicts are often contentious anyway.
And stop replaying fouls on the big screen, all it does is inflame the situation even more.

In other words, treat sky televised games like every other game, not the other way round.
Re: Watts sending off
Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:45 pm
Posted by chissitt on Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:45 pm
chissitt Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:34 am
Posts: 7056
mk_fc wrote:
He was - but the on the pitch ref was unduly influenced by the VR ... whispering in his ear that it was reckless.
He should not be, and TBH the VR should NOT be allowed to do it. Especially as you don't have the VR in every game.

In the NRL every game is televised, over here it's not making it unfair, I could not agree with you more, neither should the VR be involved in anything other than a try or no try decision, whether they were right or wrong depends on what side of the hill you live, what I tried to explain without much success and without bias was that right or wrong Bentham acted on his judgement aided by the VR.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DannyB, Faithful One, FrEaK-HullFC, Google Adsense [Bot], Marcus's Bicycle, RichM, themightynortherner, TKOAH and 118 guests

Quick Reply

Subject: Message:
   

Return to Hull FC - blackandwhites.co.uk





POSTSONLINEMEMBERSRECORDYOUR TEAM
4,662,7991,60976,3474,559SET
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
 Full Time 
World Cup: Quarter Final
AUSTRALIA
46-0
SAMOA
TOMORROW 04:00
World Cup: Quarter Final
TONGA
v
LEBANON
TOMORROW 06:30
World Cup: Quarter Final
NEW ZEALAND
v
FIJI
ALL SCORES PROVIDED BY RLFANS.COM