Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:38 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I disagree.

The ref didn't agree.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:40 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

If Deacon's face knocked the ball forward, then that is a knock on. Had it knocked the ball backwards, it wouldn't have been a knock on.

The rule was introduced to cover the situation where, Hooper style, the player deliberately heads the ball forward.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:14 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

There is a distinct difference between physicality and dangerous play. Thankfully, these days, this is recognised and their are rules in place to protect players.

Exactly. And those rules were not applied because the O'Loughlin hit was a legal challenge. Hence Wilkin getting up afterwards and not being annoyed by the decision to carry on with the game.

I don't understand your argument.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:26 pm  

MDW12 wrote:

I don't understand your argument.

The original argument was about Ryan Hoffman's late challenge on Wheeler, and the rules of the game in respect of tackling a kicker when he is kicking the ball.

I believe the challenge on Wheeler was late. That would make it an illegal challenge on one score.

My understanding of the rules of the game where challenging the kicker are concerned is that the challenging player isn't supposed to aim for the kicker but for the ball, either to intercept it or to put the kicker off. Hoffman clearly shoulder charged Wheeler in the shoulder, popping his AC joint. That is as clear as day on the TV footage. That would make it an illegal challenge on another score.

Therefore, from my POV, what Hoffman did was illegal - because it was late and because it was a direct hit on Wheeler rather than going for the ball.

However, the referee ignored it and whether the RFL will see it the same way is anyone's guess. One minute everyone is being sinbinned and the next no one is. This game's ruling body is very amateurish.

As for the O'Loughlin challenge on Wilkin, from the TV that looked high but as it was a shoulder charge it is hard to tell based on the distance from the camera. The Wheeler challenge, though, was very close to the camera and clear to see.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:22 pm  

St pete wrote:

I don't see everything thru saints specs like certain people on here.

No problem with your opinion, just don't keep shoving it down everyone's throat.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:57 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

The original argument was about Ryan Hoffman's late challenge on Wheeler, and the rules of the game in respect of tackling a kicker when he is kicking the ball.

I believe the challenge on Wheeler was late. That would make it an illegal challenge on one score.

My understanding of the rules of the game where challenging the kicker are concerned is that the challenging player isn't supposed to aim for the kicker but for the ball, either to intercept it or to put the kicker off. Hoffman clearly shoulder charged Wheeler in the shoulder, popping his AC joint. That is as clear as day on the TV footage. That would make it an illegal challenge on another score.

Therefore, from my POV, what Hoffman did was illegal - because it was late and because it was a direct hit on Wheeler rather than going for the ball.

However, the referee ignored it and whether the RFL will see it the same way is anyone's guess. One minute everyone is being sinbinned and the next no one is. This game's ruling body is very amateurish.

As for the O'Loughlin challenge on Wilkin, from the TV that looked high but as it was a shoulder charge it is hard to tell based on the distance from the camera. The Wheeler challenge, though, was very close to the camera and clear to see.

Sorry pal, think we've got our wires crossed. I can see how some people may argue that the Hoffman challenge was illegal and how some can think that it was not. Personally I still can't decide and like many things in rugby league these days, it's very much down to opinion.

But I was initially responding to a comment about the O'Loughlin challenge on Wilkin which I definitely do think was legal. High-ish but still hit a legal part of the body on initial contact. And I think that's why none of the players made nothing of that particular incident as I presume they thought the same.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:02 pm  

Benidorm John wrote:

No problem with your opinion, just don't keep shoving it down everyone's throat.

Throwing it down everyones throat?

You idiot, this thread is on the Hoffman tackle. I've only had a debate with saintsfan over this and don't see why you keep stalking me with sly little comments.

I dont slag you off for replying to every single post that rouges makes on here that always ends in some silly smilie.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:16 pm  

I think if Wheeler had got up, it wouldnt have got a second mention.
I dont think it was illegal, but it could easily have got penalised

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:20 pm  

saintcj wrote:

I think if Wheeler had got up, it wouldnt have got a second mention.
I dont think it was illegal, but it could easily have got penalised

That's how I see it.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:46 pm  

saintcj wrote:

I think if Wheeler had got up, it wouldnt have got a second mention.

I think it would. But it wouldn't have pi$$ed ME off quite so much if Wheeler had got up. The fact is, though, he didn't. And the reason why he didn't was because Hoffman aimed for his shoulder with a high impact shoulder charge. Hoffman was no way aiming for the ball. Unless Wheeler is gifted in the art of kicking a ball with his shoulder.