CUMMINS ADMITS THE REF GOT IT WRONG

[stevocod]

Wigan Watcher posted:
I have got to admit that I have never been a fan of Cummings but, he has to stand by most decisions that are made by his men. If he decided to comment on ever incident and confesses that mistakes are made every game then the game of rugby league would become a total joke.
He is at least saying the correct things most of the time even if privately he does not believe them.

No not the game the refereeing interpretations and or the rules which need to be amended i.e. as mentioned the ball carrier responsibility.

[robjoenz]

stevocod posted:

Wigan Watcher posted:
I have got to admit that I have never been a fan of Cummings but, he has to stand by most decisions that are made by his men. If he decided to comment on ever incident and confesses that mistakes are made every game then the game of rugby league would become a total joke.
He is at least saying the correct things most of the time even if privately he does not believe them.

No not the game the refereeing interpretations and or the rules which need to be amended i.e. as mentioned the ball carrier responsibility.

You can do all the moaning you like about the rules but you have to ask yourself why the rule was brought in in the first place. It was to improve the game. If the rule was changed back to how it used to be there'd be complaints about that.

Edit: You as in the sense of 'anybody' opposed to 'Stevocod'

[stevocod]

Not really if it was a simple ball carriers responsibilty i would help and would eliminate probs with videos or refs probs. These are the reasons football is going down hill because of the more non contacting techniques, next we will be playing touch rugby and it will be as bad as basketball or ice hockey.

Sport is best played when kept simple and can do without these stupid confusing rules to complicate a good game and deminish it as the more these rules develop.

[Jake]

jimofwigan posted:
I am in shock and I mean deep shock.

Cummins admitted tonight that Kershaw made a wrong call and that the penalty try was never a try.
Pity he can't undo the score but you can't have everythig

Does this mean that Kershaw is in the recycle bin?

[robjoenz]

stevocod posted:
Not really if it was a simple ball carriers responsibilty i would help and would eliminate probs with videos or refs probs. These are the reasons football is going down hill because of the more non contacting techniques, next we will be playing touch rugby and it will be as bad as basketball or ice hockey.

Sport is best played when kept simple and can do without these stupid confusing rules to complicate a good game and deminish it as the more these rules develop.

I agree with your second paragraph, however, it isn't quite that simple. You have to consider what the intent of the rule is in the first place.

The no-stealing rule was brought in to try and make the game flow more, so that players would be more inclined to keep the ball free and look for an offload and for second phase play. Ball carrying players have now become wise to the fact that they can get a penalty if the ball is lost when defending players hands are in the tackle. Therefore, the defenders hands go in and soon after the attacking player releases the ball, asking for a penalty. The referee then has the very difficult decision of what to give, penalise a ball steal or a loose carry?

You and a few others have suggested permitting ball stealing, and you would definately eradicate attacking players from conning the referee into penalties by dropping the ball intentionally BUT there is the downside that the ball carrier would keep the ball tight against his chest with two hands. There would be very little second phase play from offloads because they'd be too scared to hold the ball free. Your props would revert back to being purely battering rams and the likes of O'Loughlin and Fletcher who fend off the first man and put their body between the ball and the tackler whilst holding the ball free to offload would not be able to do so as they would be dispossessed.

Whilst you would help ease a problematic area of the game you would slow the game down which in my mind is a bigger backwards step.

[stevocod]

But if your as strong as Feka, Fielden, Willie Mason you should be able to throw of the tackler and still offload. I think players will be more inclined then to bulk up and develop more versatile players to enable them to offload.

While keeping the ball alive is attractive attacking wise it can be inefficient especially if you over elaborate and give field position away.

[robjoenz]

stevocod posted:
But if your as strong as Feka, Fielden, Willie Mason you should be able to throw of the tackler and still offload. I think players will be more inclined then to bulk up and develop more versatile players to enable them to offload.

I'm not sure about players bulking up more, but I think we both agree it would have an impact on how the game is played. It is whether that impact is positive or negative which is debatable.

[stevocod]

robjoenz posted:

stevocod posted:
But if your as strong as Feka, Fielden, Willie Mason you should be able to throw of the tackler and still offload. I think players will be more inclined then to bulk up and develop more versatile players to enable them to offload.

I'm not sure about players bulking up more, but I think we both agree it would have an impact on how the game is played. It is whether that impact is positive or negative which is debatable.

Well i don't think it would be that negative and players would still offload. I just think it would stamp out the ball carrying player problems and Halpenny decision would have been irrelevant.

[robjoenz]

stevocod posted:
Well i don't think it would be that negative and players would still offload. I just think it would stamp out the ball carrying player problems and Halpenny decision would have been irrelevant.

You clearly do, but the people who suggested bringing to rule in obviously thought it would have a positive impact on the game.

The Halpenny incident would still have gone against us.

[stevocod]

robjoenz posted:

stevocod posted:
Well i don't think it would be that negative and players would still offload. I just think it would stamp out the ball carrying player problems and Halpenny decision would have been irrelevant.

You clearly do, but the people who suggested bringing to rule in obviously thought it would have a positive impact on the game.

The Halpenny incident would still have gone against us.

I'm not debating that in the current rule state it was a try. I'm just saying it should be amended in future to clarify exactly how the referee should interpret the rule. As it stands the official goes on a whim and can balance it how he wants and even it up when he feels and that's not how the game should be officiated.