Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:49 pm  

Have to say I thought the ref was OK. The penalty count was massively in our favour for a reason.

The big one he missed was quite how one of their players ended up on the deck off the ball in front of their fans, who went ballistic. Understandably he was watching the area with the ball in play when it happened. The ref checked with both touchies, no one had seen it. He seemed to explain that to the lad on the floor and got on with it.

Whilst a persistent misconduct sin binning must have been close, and arguably should have been done, all in all I thought he was decent. It's not him making high tackles.

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:56 pm  

Certainly the attack has not gelled as it did last season. For me, part of the reason is that we've not yet had the Cunningham/Ackers combo at 9, and we did seem to get a good roll on last year when that was in operation, with quick ptbs the order of the day. The centres are also a problem for me. Kear is far better at full-back, and I'm not convinced by Purtill.

And I totally agree with itsmeagain about the high shots. Yesterday wasn't the first time this year. Referees have a duty to protect players, and they're not doing it. I wonder what the legal position might be if a player were to lose his livelihood through a high shot as a consequence of a referee allowing the practice to continue.

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:51 pm  

Not going to comment on the referee as I was not at the game. Think it's quite interesting that halfdan has a different view and assuming he was at the game.
Not sure how you can suggest that a referee could be held legally responsible for a plater planting a high shot on another player though. It's the player commit job the offence pure and simple.

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:02 pm  

all in all I thought he was decent. It's not him making high tackles.

No he doesn't make the high tackles that is the players but he is paid to do a job and ensure a safe game but continually allowing high tackles he is not doing his job. |Use the sin bin more and red card particularly bad shots the message would soon get across to the players that it will not be tolerated. It is human nature we all do what we get away with.

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:36 pm  

Thing is it was your opinion that it merited, yellow or red card, obviously it was the opinion of the 3 officials on the pitch that it didn't. However the match officials perfirnance will be reviewed and if after review it was seen that they did not do there job correctly or they should have acted differently then the process they go through will highlight it. Every game is videoed and reviewed.
I find it interesting again though that someone else had the opinion that he was not as bad as suggested

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:40 pm  

Broncos were abysmal. Worst I've seen them play at TFSC. As someone else has said but for a poor option by a Hornets player with about 12 mins left, we would have lost.

I don't think Sammut changed the game as it happens. It seemed fairly obvious to me that a part-time team that put a massive amount of effort into warming up just ran out of fuel at 65 mins.

What was the crowd, anyone? 400ish?

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:02 pm  

Making a pretty big thing about them being a part time team, the reality is they are a part time team that have been pretty good for the first 7 games of the season. The fact they are part time and not able to maintain the pace yep probably won if for us but is that not the whole point of us being full time?
From what I have seen so far apart from the KR game us we certainly have not managed to get out of second gear yet! We are going to have to improve.
Toulouse at easter will be interesting.

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:09 pm  

To answer Micky yes I was there.

I thought one head shot was rather nasty but I've seen much worse than most of them, including by London players - Scott Moore springs to mind plus one away game at Wakefield when Nigel Roy et al rather lost the plot. I thought penalty sufficient was right most times. I do think the option of a sin binning for persistent team misconduct must have been close.

I've been watching RL for twenty plus years and at professional level can only recall two red cards for head shots.

Just to add I'd guesstimate the crowd at 350 - 400 with about 10% being Rochdale fans.

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:22 pm  

Got a video of one at magic weekend if you want, James child, no argument straight red.
Am not trying to suggest it's acceptable and yep they should be acted on when appropriate, it is one of those things that fans tend to only see when they are on receiving end though and not the ones the team they support do!
Like I say I was not there so can't comment, I just find it interesting that there are 2 views on the Refs actions.

Re: Hornets : Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:35 pm  

To be clear I would like to see head shots cracked down on. The studies on the impact of concussion in sport makes it a must be done tbh.

It needs to be done as a coordinated crack down with agreed standards not by one referee waving lots of red cards around when others referee to a different tolerance.

I think the referee on Sunday pretty much called as he should have done under current interpretations. I wouldn't argue if interpretations were hardened and more of the challenges on Sunday moved from the penalty sufficient category to the penalty plus (red or yellow) card category.