Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:21 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

We’re breeding players lying down looking for penalties and guys like Field and French signalling for ten minutes the other day and that is extremely sad to see. I hope Peet has had a strong word with those two after that.

In all honesty (and without excusing it) I think that was out of frustration at us having players sent off and trying to even it up a bit. Lees should have gone earlier if we're officiating to the current rules. I'm guessing the players had little faith in Kendall so were trying to take matters into their own hands

Like you say though, I don't like to see it or, in particular, the play acting. Not what we expect from our sport.

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:24 pm  

Zig wrote:

Brian Carney’s idea is similar and far more practical. We need to remember the speed at which the game is being played at. This is not 70’s thuggery.

I said after the Cas game that I didn’t see a bad challenge all night and it was much the same on Friday. Everyone gets the need to be seen to be clamping down but a Grade E for this Byrne challenge is just incredible. We’ve had a couple of weeks of common sense after the players meeting but they’re going to have to make them a twice monthly thing if this keeps up.

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:27 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

In all honesty (and without excusing it) I think that was out of frustration at us having players sent off and trying to even it up a bit. Lees should have gone earlier if we're officiating to the current rules. I'm guessing the players had little faith in Kendall so were trying to take matters into their own hands

Like you say though, I don't like to see it or, in particular, the play acting. Not what we expect from our sport.

The saddest part is that all this is going to get worse. It won’t be much better than football for it in a couple of years. Certain teams are already crowding the ref/rushing in/arm waving after challenges and then you get some (bad) coaches moaning about in game decisions (small ones, not stuff like this Byrne incident) and taking no blame for defeats and all that will only intensify.

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:28 pm  

How is Byrne's worse than this? It defies logic... https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... -foul-play 2-3 matches at worst.

How is Byrne's worse than this? It defies logic... https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... -foul-play 2-3 matches at worst.

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:30 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

The saddest part is that all this is going to get worse. It won’t be much better than football for it in a couple of years. Certain teams are already crowding the ref/rushing in/arm waving after challenges and then you get some (bad) coaches moaning about in game decisions (small ones, not stuff like this Byrne incident) and taking no blame for defeats and all that will only intensify.

Couldn't agree more mate. The game is being changed beyond all recognition unnecessarily. Baby and bath water comes to mind..

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:49 pm  

I’d expect us to challenge the grading for Byrne. Under the current rules I’ve still no issue with the red but grade E is nonsense when it was plain to see there was no malice or intent in there.

Lees’ is the type of challenge they are trying to stamp out, it i’m sure he didn’t mean to clash heads but his technique was all wrong and it resulted in direct head contact.

I’m surprised Dupree didn’t pick up anything for the forearm, it was careless at best and expected a match or 2 for that. Didn’t see the one that got him a ban.

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:54 pm  

Grade E is 3-5
A couple of posters are saying 2/3 would be right
If he gets 3 then it will fit in with what people were saying
I dont think it was a bad one, but it was a sending off and in the spirit of everyone wanting "consistency" we have Grading, which leads to tackles imo being placed in higher grades than others which are more dangerous imo.

As for the VR saying it was a yellow, I can confirm he deffo did say it, and the feedback post game is that the VR got that wrong and it should have been Red

Reaper
It isn't an accidental head clash, because he goes in recklessly head up and placing it directly head to head without making an attempt to get the head to the side/lower to avoid head on head contact, and he's done it before, Tom A-one got 3 games earlier in season.
Dupree has got 1 game for a head clash on Batchelor,.and before anyone says why not 2, then it s apples and oranges and you can see Dupree makes the tackle and wraps the arms etc and the head clash is almost side on side to each other, he just should have got his head to the other side.

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:00 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

Grade E is 3-5
A couple of posters are saying 2/3 would be right
If he gets 3 then it will fit in with what people were saying
I dont think it was a bad one, but it was a sending off and in the spirit of everyone wanting "consistency" we have Grading, which leads to tackles imo being placed in higher grades than others which are more dangerous imo.

As for the VR saying it was a yellow, I can confirm he deffo did say it, and the feedback post game is that the VR got that wrong and it should have been Red

Reaper
It isn't an accidental head clash, because he goes in recklessly head up and placing it directly head to head without making and attempt to get the head to the side/lower to avoid head on head contact, and he's done it before, Tom A-one got 3 games earlier in season.
Dupree has got 1 game for a head clash on Batchelor,.and before anyone says why not 2, then it s apples and oranges and you can see Dupree makes the tackle and wraps the arms etc and the head clash is almost side on side to each other, he just should have got his head to the other side.

Is the bit in bold not irrelevant Jukesy? Kendall didn't see the incident; he was playing on until Percy stayed down at which point he asked for clarity from the VR, which the VR gave him, and he then overruled despite not having seen the offence! Surely that is bizzare officiating by any standards?

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:11 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Is the bit in bold not irrelevant Jukesy? Kendall didn't see the incident; he was playing on until Percy stayed down at which point he asked for clarity from the VR, which the VR gave him, and he then overruled despite not having seen the offence! Surely that is bizzare officiating by any standards?

I don't disagree and it opened up a conversation that is very close to my heart
Obviously I have to be careful, but my take on it has was been that the big screen should be switched off other than for try/no try decisions
For years I've been preaching to 2 x SL officials I know (one has retired) that we go through the farce of the ref asking the lineo near the screen to come on so he can watch it over his shoulder etc.
In this instance imo it's compounded by him not seeing the original offence due to positioning which I can understand, but then the VR giving the wrong advice (and he did) and then Kendall seeing the screen to come to what I think was the right decision (I'm not talking about grading or ban here as that is a separate issue) when maybe he shouldn't but we all.know they do.

Re: Saints (a) : Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:21 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

I don't disagree and it opened up a conversation that is very close to my heart
Obviously I have to be careful, but my take on it has was been that the big screen should be switched off other than for try/no try decisions
For years I've been preaching to 2 x SL officials I know (one has retired) that we go through the farce of the ref asking the lineo near the screen to come on so he can watch it over his shoulder etc.
In this instance imo it's compounded by him not seeing the original offence due to positioning which I can understand, but then the VR giving the wrong advice (and he did) and then Kendall seeing the screen to come to what I think was the right decision (I'm not talking about grading or ban here as that is a separate issue) when maybe he shouldn't but we all.know they do.

The whole system is a farce at the moment. The sending it up as a try/no try being a prime example. I think most people can see what goes on which makes it more ridiculous when a ref gets a decision wrong, the player or captain says "look at the screen" to which the ref replies "I can't". I always want to add "unless it suits you"

The correct decision was reached in this case but I don't think that's the point as correct decisions weren't reached on other incidents during the game (the Lees no card for example) and the often mentioned "evening out of decisions" only happens if it's the same for both sides. Lees doesn't walk (incorrectly ) and Byrne gets a yellow (incorrectly) and we possibly win that game. Lees correctly gets sent off and Byrne correctly gets sent off and, again, we possibly win that game. Lees staying on and Byrne getting sent off tips the balance the other way.

Shouldn't happen.