Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:24 am  

Judder Man wrote:

Not seen the match yet, did we have McDonnell, Swift and Percival missing from the back line in those last 10 mins.

Effectively yes. But herein lies the nub. Even with our backline in tatters - Castleford still weren't presenting much of a threat. What we should have done is what we were doing up till half time. Four or five big drivers and put them straight back down in coffin corner.

Instead of sticking to the plan we decided to deviate toward a more expansive style. Ultimately it cost us the match.

Fortunately, this isn't a difficult problem to put right. Indeed, I'm sure the players have already put it right in their heads.

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:33 am  

Dux wrote:

Justice served to LMS, at our expense, unfortunately. RL seems to have taken a significant leap towards football-esque behaviour this season, with handbags in Origin and feigned injury in SL. I don't want to see it at Saints and hopefully LMS will pack it in after that.

Correct, it's sad to see.

Henderson at Catalans is the worst for feigning injury. It's every single time they have to defend a second set in a row, he's down receiving treatment.

Something needs to be done!

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:54 am  

BuckleyStreetWire wrote:

Correct, it's sad to see.

Henderson at Catalans is the worst for feigning injury. It's every single time they have to defend a second set in a row, he's down receiving treatment.

Something needs to be done!

It's a tricky one, as it's clearly a result of the new serious approach to head injuries. Basically as soon as a player stays still and holds his head the ref has to stop the game. It's difficult to know how a ref can be expected to make a distinction between genuine cases and false ones. Even when it's obviously play-acting, as in LMS's or Henderson's case, what actual hard evidence is there for the ref to point to?

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:02 am  

Dux wrote:

It's a tricky one, as it's clearly a result of the new serious approach to head injuries. Basically as soon as a player stays still and holds his head the ref has to stop the game. It's difficult to know how a ref can be expected to make a distinction between genuine cases and false ones. Even when it's obviously play-acting, as in LMS's or Henderson's case, what actual hard evidence is there for the ref to point to?

Good point the wors thing would be if a player was ignored and it ended up being serious.

The players (or coaches if it's a directive coming from them) have got to get a hold of themselves and stop this shizzle! it's not something i like at all, far too association football for me

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:17 am  

At least someone got to grips with Bailey's incessant play-acting. He's another of SL's so-called "hard men" who threw the towel in after his first encounter with Bigfoot.

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:41 am  

The Allez rant is looking somewhat personal.

Can't fathom the KC hate. Personally I did not want him to be coach last year. I thought it was to early and he should have been tried and tested elsewhere first.

However, I can't have too many complaints about the season so far. Plenty of youngsters getting their chances to shine. He has coped remarkably well with the injuries on the roster and managed the team pretty well. I think there has been on outburst against the youngsters that I would not have approved of. But if a coach says one thing to hack you off in a year that is no bad thing. Tony Smith is a very experienced coach and he still comes out with pap every now and then.

Also when comparing coaches. TS had a team at the start of the year that was touted for top spot. So KC is hardly doing a poor job surpassing all other coaches in the league apart from maybe Brian McDermott.

Also last night the players hardly helped themselves. There were brainfarts all over that feild. That is down to individuals.

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:41 am  

BuckleyStreetWire wrote:

Good point the wors thing would be if a player was ignored and it ended up being serious.

The players (or coaches if it's a directive coming from them) have got to get a hold of themselves and stop this shizzle! it's not something i like at all, far too association football for me

The way to fix it would be to say that :

1) anybody who goes down with a head injury, play stops and the player is removed from the field for a minimum 10 minutes - even if they subsequently get up and say they're ok.

2) anybody going down with a non-head injury, if they are not interfering with play - play on (unless it's an obvious stretcher case like a broken leg)

3) anybody going down with a non-head injury who IS interfering with play, mandatory removal from the field for 10 minutes for "treatment".

I agree that we do not want this gamesmanship in rugby league. Refs can't take risks with head injuries because they're not visible. But with all other injuries, it is very obvious if the injury is serious or not. If serious, by all means stop the game. If not, then send them to the sidelines instantly. If they refuse to go, or miraculously recover, bin them.

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:12 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

The way to fix it would be to say that :

1) anybody who goes down with a head injury, play stops and the player is removed from the field for a minimum 10 minutes - even if they subsequently get up and say they're ok.

2) anybody going down with a non-head injury, if they are not interfering with play - play on (unless it's an obvious stretcher case like a broken leg)

3) anybody going down with a non-head injury who IS interfering with play, mandatory removal from the field for 10 minutes for "treatment".

I agree that we do not want this gamesmanship in rugby league. Refs can't take risks with head injuries because they're not visible. But with all other injuries, it is very obvious if the injury is serious or not. If serious, by all means stop the game. If not, then send them to the sidelines instantly. If they refuse to go, or miraculously recover, bin them.

Whenever discussing topics such as play-acting and how to tackle such there's always the danger of over-complicating or over-legislating the issue.

Personally I'd be quite happy giving referees the mandate and, more importantly, the FLEXIBILITY to use their own discretion. I think this is a far more sensible solution than attempting to hack out a list of officially proscribed acts as long as your arm.

The minute this happens you've got SKY, RL pundits and the fans all scrutinising the game with a magnifying glass and backing the ref into zero-sum game of "correct" and "incorrect" responses.

Like all of us refs intuitively know what constitutes play-acting. I'm happy to simply inform them that we need to do something about it and leave it up to them to arrive at a sensible punishment for individual indiscretions. I feel they'll feel more empowered to fix the problem this way than legislating the game up the wazoo.

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:20 pm  

LMS was a loon last night. Great game going forward, but probably equalled any yardage gained with the penalties he gave away.

When other good teams have their tails up in defence, Wigan in particular, they can trap the opposition on their line with aggressive line speed, when ever we get into that groove, we've given a penalty away for offside by the end of the set. LMS is possibly the worse culprit for this. Either he's too eager getting off the line, he' to lazy to get back properly in the first place or he's too dim to realise one of the above.

Re: LMS : Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:54 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Whenever discussing topics such as play-acting and how to tackle such there's always the danger of over-complicating or over-legislating the issue.

Personally I'd be quite happy giving referees the mandate and, more importantly, the FLEXIBILITY to use their own discretion. I think this is a far more sensible solution than attempting to hack out a list of officially proscribed acts as long as your arm.

The minute this happens you've got SKY, RL pundits and the fans all scrutinising the game with a magnifying glass and backing the ref into zero-sum game of "correct" and "incorrect" responses.

Like all of us refs intuitively know what constitutes play-acting. I'm happy to simply inform them that we need to do something about it and leave it up to them to arrive at a sensible punishment for individual indiscretions. I feel they'll feel more empowered to fix the problem this way than legislating the game up the wazoo.

I agree with you that this would be the best way of dealing with it, but I don't see that approach being adopted. The whole rationale of the new concussion rules seems to be to take human intuition out of the equation entirely in order to minimise risk. Having made that move I can't see the RFL then allowing referees to decide whether someone is putting it on or not. I think something like Roy's suggestion might be necessary if there's going to be a workable solution to the gamesmanship (or 'cheating', as we should probably call it) that's creeping in this season.