Re: Offside or not : Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:17 pm  

Leyther_Matt wrote:

Just seen it again and I think it was a harsh one but I trust in a referee of Bentham's experience to make the right call. That said, I thought it was equally harsh to disallow Riddy's try as Jones just ran straight in to Littler who did nowt other than stand his ground as he's entitled to do.

Interpretations again. I believe Littler although he is entitled to run through our line as a dummer runner he cant actually stop like he did in our defensive line. Thing about it is if he runs through like Haley did for us then the try would have been awarded.

Re: Offside or not : Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:21 pm  

Leyther_Matt wrote:

Just seen it again and I think it was a harsh one but I trust in a referee of Bentham's experience to make the right call. That said, I thought it was equally harsh to disallow Riddy's try as Jones just ran straight in to Littler who did nowt other than stand his ground as he's entitled to do.

The thing is as well Matt that lets say the first Worrincy try had been allowed and lets be even more generous and give Jonesey the kick from the touchline.
The game would have been completely different none of the other things would have happened and for all we know Fax might have won by 20 or Leigh by 30.
Every game will have moments which will convince us that we were robbed and sometimes we will be blatantly so.
How many times have we walked from a game saying "that cheating, robbing b******* in the middle" when we lose but he had a cracking game when we win

Re: Offside or not : Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:23 pm  

Have to admit I thought it was a try but then I would have allowed Ridyard's try 4 us soon after.

These contraversial decisions usually balance out over the course of a game imo.

Re: Offside or not : Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:32 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

Interpretations again. I believe Littler although he is entitled to run through our line as a dummer runner he cant actually stop like he did in our defensive line. Thing about it is if he runs through like Haley did for us then the try would have been awarded.

I can see one huge contradiction in the games rules after this match.
Firstly when a player kicks the ball like Blacky did and runs after it you have this 10 metre rule where players cannot interfere with the opponent until the kicker brings them onside.
Yet in the other disallowed try we have the thorny issue of dummy runners who run into the opposition line yet often get away with it even when 'blocking' a player, in this case the right call was made as Leigh had 3 dummy runners run at our line and two were actually right up and into our defensive line, taking one and maybe two defenders out.
Yet why does one rule demand 10 metres with no interference yet dummy runners can run right at and into your line but get away with it?
In recent years it has got worse and for me I don't like it as like Batley did for their 'matchwinning try' at the Shay one of their players ran at Blacky and just caught his arm taking him out but the Ref and most of us missed it, just watch the replay on the DVD and you will see it created the gap for their player to score.
I would like to see dummy runners not allowed to go into the defensive line, similar to the offside on a kick rule but not 10 metres just prevent them taking players out by making it illegal to run into the opposition line only at the line.
Its borderline when you see a player go for the dummy runner, some say tough you should not have fallen for it but I say as a defender it often blocks your view and takes your space to defend so its almost cheating but its legal in the current rules.

Re: Offside or not : Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:58 pm  

Fax4Life wrote:

I can see one huge contradiction in the games rules after this match.
Firstly when a player kicks the ball like Blacky did and runs after it you have this 10 metre rule where players cannot interfere with the opponent until the kicker brings them onside.
Yet in the other disallowed try we have the thorny issue of dummy runners who run into the opposition line yet often get away with it even when 'blocking' a player, in this case the right call was made as Leigh had 3 dummy runners run at our line and two were actually right up and into our defensive line, taking one and maybe two defenders out.
Yet why does one rule demand 10 metres with no interference yet dummy runners can run right at and into your line but get away with it?
In recent years it has got worse and for me I don't like it as like Batley did for their 'matchwinning try' at the Shay one of their players ran at Blacky and just caught his arm taking him out but the Ref and most of us missed it, just watch the replay on the DVD and you will see it created the gap for their player to score.
I would like to see dummy runners not allowed to go into the defensive line, similar to the offside on a kick rule but not 10 metres just prevent them taking players out by making it illegal to run into the opposition line only at the line.
Its borderline when you see a player go for the dummy runner, some say tough you should not have fallen for it but I say as a defender it often blocks your view and takes your space to defend so its almost cheating but its legal in the current rules.

Yes this is a good point and it is contributed to by the position of the attacking team when the ball is played.
We all know the defending side has to be 10 meters back at the play the ball and is fairly keenly watched.
However as far as I am aware the attacking side should be 5 meters back behind the play the ball, most attacking teams are normally only a couple of meters back at best some are almost inline with the play the ball thus enabling the dummy runners to interfere with the defensive line much more easily.
How many times do we see the attacking side being penalised for being offside at the play the ball? Never.
All teams do it but it does interfere with the defense.

Re: Offside or not : Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:50 pm  

faxcar wrote:

How many times do we see the attacking side being penalised for being offside at the play the ball? Never.

Michael Jackson at Saints to cost us the win many moons ago.

Re: Offside or not : Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:40 am  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

Michael Jackson at Saints to cost us the win many moons ago.

Ha ha very true but not in this context he was laying on the floor (injured I think which was unusual for Michael and there was no sofa on the pitch at the time) not running into the defensive line while encroaching the 5 meters for the attacking side.
That example does show that the rule used to be their though only 2 players within 5 meters of the play the ball for the side having possession, the one playing the ball and acting half.
Campbell has since apologised and it had nothing to do with him being an ex Saints player and Saints were losing or Mals rant about having read the script and could see it coming, to think that would just be missguided

Re: Offside or not : Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:40 am  

the thing is with the plays were a player runs through as a dummy runner is its very easy for the defending team to run into the dummy runner if they've read the play wrong and they can see they cant get accross to make the tackle, just as jones did for ridyards try plus his own player pushed him on the floor

Re: Offside or not : Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:40 pm  

gunners guns13 wrote:

the thing is with the plays were a player runs through as a dummy runner is its very easy for the defending team to run into the dummy runner if they've read the play wrong and they can see they cant get accross to make the tackle, just as jones did for ridyards try plus his own player pushed him on the floor

The main point here though was that Littler stopped in the Fax line preventing Jones from moving across. If he had continued through the line then he woud have not blocked Jones. Whether Jones would have got to Ridyard or not no-one knows but Littler stopping in the line made sure he didn't.

Having watched the game back you could argue a more obvious crossing (in old money) was actually the game winning try. After dummying the drop goal, Ridyard then crosed behind his own player, putting this player between him and Jones. Doubtful whether Jones could have made up the ground to get to him though and it would have been harsh to call it.

Re: Offside or not : Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:49 pm  

gizempo wrote:

The main point here though was that Littler stopped in the Fax line preventing Jones from moving across. If he had continued through the line then he woud have not blocked Jones. Whether Jones would have got to Ridyard or not no-one knows but Littler stopping in the line made sure he didn't.

Look how long Jones clings on to Littler before getting cleaned out by his own man. Even the commentary team acknowledged that he played for the penalty, knowing he wouldn't have got near to Ridyard.