Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:56 pm  

St pete wrote:

Can't be arsed having this debate from somebody that's never played the game.

Rugby is a tough sport and more things go on than what Hoffman did and alot worse.

Maybe we should play tick n pass

I haven't posted for months , just read the forums, but having read several of your posts since the Wigan match I just had to say.......

Please put a sock in it and stop spouting utter tripe with your 'I know what I'm talking about..... just toughen up.... it's a man's game..... I 'm always right and if you don't agree with me you must be wrong' overbearing tone.

God your posts are irritating and 100% confrontational.

Rules are rules, sometimes it would be nice if for the most part, they were enforced as they should be by the officials. Especially when they directly influence the result of a game.

Queue another overbearing, high and mighty response cos I've played the game for 20 years etc, etc, etc

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:32 pm  

St pete wrote:

For gods sake give it up! He was committed to the tackle and was no intent. It happens every week by saints players and every other player in all levels of rugby.

The fact he was hurt is unfortunate but that's rugby. Also the fact we lost don't help.

If we'd won and and wheeler hadn't have got hurt you'd not even mention that tackle.

Really?
That's not what the Independent and Guardian say. Both papers - who I don't think are biaised either way - suggest the the RFL needs to investigate what looked to be a late challenge on wheeler. It is unusual for papers to even suggest such actions which shows that their reporters think it was late. (The tabloids didn't give the whole game more than about 100 words so no surprise they didn't mention it).

This does not "happen every week" any more as you well know - it is totally outlawed and yes hooper did it all the time and got penalised for it and then it was banned. In particular, he took a delight in taking out briers to such an extent that he became the no1 hate figure in this town!

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:41 pm  

saint at wire wrote: Really? That's not what the Independent and Guardian say. Both papers - who I don't think are biaised either way - suggest the the RFL needs to investigate what looked to be a late challenge on wheeler. It is unusual for papers to even suggest such actions which shows that their reporters think it was late. (The tabloids didn't give the whole game more than about 100 words so no surprise they didn't mention it). This does not "happen every week" any more as you well know - it is totally outlawed and yes hooper did it all the time and got penalised for it and then it was banned. In particular, he took a delight in taking out briers to such an extent that he became the no1 hate figure in this town! Even the Express says the tackle was late - well they describe it as an "off-the-ball tackle" forcing wheeler out of the action: http://www.express.co.uk/printer/view/242470/. Three independent newspapers to nil against so far saying it was late/ off the ball.

saint at wire wrote: Really? That's not what the Independent and Guardian say. Both papers - who I don't think are biaised either way - suggest the the RFL needs to investigate what looked to be a late challenge on wheeler. It is unusual for papers to even suggest such actions which shows that their reporters think it was late. (The tabloids didn't give the whole game more than about 100 words so no surprise they didn't mention it). This does not "happen every week" any more as you well know - it is totally outlawed and yes hooper did it all the time and got penalised for it and then it was banned. In particular, he took a delight in taking out briers to such an extent that he became the no1 hate figure in this town! Even the Express says the tackle was late - well they describe it as an "off-the-ball tackle" forcing wheeler out of the action: http://www.express.co.uk/printer/view/242470/. Three independent newspapers to nil against so far saying it was late/ off the ball.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:58 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

And no, Rogues, the two were not comparable. When a player is pressurising a kicker he is not supposed to tackle the kicker but intercept the ball or distract the kicker. He shouldn't have been touching Wheeler, never mind taking him out so late that he had chance to look up.

Translation: And no, Rogues, the two are not comparable as one was by a Saints player and as you well know, Saints can do no wrong.

Get a life girl! Even better, get an evenhanded approach to you views. How come you aren't giving the same milage to complaints about the ridiculous 'face knock on' that changed the course of the match, George Carmont being penalised for playing the ball despite the 'obvious to everyone but the ref' fact that a Saints player had a hand on him thus rendering the tackle complete. What about the 'Offside' against the same player that, according to, not only the actual rules of the game, but the ref's own call, was impossible?

The bottom line is there were good and bad decisions for and against both teams. It's called sport. I know you have trouble with the concept but give it a go eh?

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:15 am  

Let's see what the RFL do about it.

If we'd won and wheeler wasn't injured that tackle wouldn't even get a mention.

In fact it would be the forward pass that would be the excuse.

Big Dave fairleigh, I'll write what I think happened, not what other people want me to write, this is a open forum where people write opinions. My opinion is that he looked committed ( only see it live, I'm not that obsessed as to watch it back with stopwatch).

If three newspapers said it was late then by god they must be right so I'll take back my own personal opinion and change in what I beleive because three newspapers say it. I recall them newspapers writing that KC had left saints for welsh union.

Confrontational mr fairleigh? Give over you wuss.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:18 am  

saint at wire wrote: Even the Express says the tackle was late - well they describe it as an "off-the-ball tackle" forcing wheeler out of the action: http://www.express.co.uk/printer/view/242470/. Three independent newspapers to nil against so far saying it was late/ off the ball. Yet the four officials didn't.

saint at wire wrote: Even the Express says the tackle was late - well they describe it as an "off-the-ball tackle" forcing wheeler out of the action: http://www.express.co.uk/printer/view/242470/. Three independent newspapers to nil against so far saying it was late/ off the ball. Yet the four officials didn't.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:47 am  

St pete wrote:

Yet the four officials didn't.

At least two officials didn't call the forward pass which led to Wigan's first try. Does that mean the forward pass didn't happen?

You can never use the action/inaction of officials as an argument one way or the other because they are largely incompetent in rugby league.

St pete wrote:

I recall them newspapers writing that KC had left saints for welsh union.

On Superleague Supermen, Keiron himself said that he had the paper in front of him, that he was five minutes from signing. He had been interviewed by the press. And besides which, the Independent and the Guardian both write opinion pieces on rugby league. Op Eds may have facts in them but they are not factual as investigative pieces are. They are opinion.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:52 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

Translation: And no, Rogues, the two are not comparable as one was by a Saints player and as you well know, Saints can do no wrong.

The two are not comparable. Wheeler was a kicker and by the rules he should not have been touched; your guy was on the way to the line with ball in hand and therefore very much should have been tackled.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:56 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

The two are not comparable. Wheeler was a kicker and by the rules he should not have been touched; your guy was on the way to the line with ball in hand and therefore very much should have been tackled.

Does the rule state that the kicker can't be touched at any point?

If so the are many pens going missed every week in every rugby league game all over the world.

Re: Ryan Hoffman : Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:01 am  

St pete wrote:

Does the rule state that the kicker can't be touched at any point?

The aim should not be to touch the kicker; the aim is to either distract the kicker or intercept the ball. Hoffman was so late and so hard in to Wheeler, there looked to be no intention of going for the ball, but only the kicker. That surely is against the present ruling?

I've read on Redvee today that one poster who watched the match in the corporate area said the Wigan u20s guys came in at one time and claimed the plan was to 'take out' Wheeler. Could be garbage on all fronts, but who knows.