Re: Long rejects Newton apolo...

[moranmore]

Cant understand all this fuss about Long.
The main culprit was Ian Smith who should be brought before the Rugby League for attrmpting to incite a riot.
Wigan started the better side and looked confident in the opening 15 minutes only to find they have concecec to tries which dont apprar in any rule book I have read.I have never seen such blatant forward passrs(the st.helens game plan) in my life.
Its no wonder players lose the plot and see red.
Newton is known for seeing the red mist and I dont condone him for that but I wonder how many Wigan fans would have reacted similar if they could have got on the pitch.
I haven't seen a crowd so incensed for a while.
Its about time the rules were looked at regarding forward passes.
I was always taught that you had to turn your shoulders to propel the ball backwards.
If ref's looked at body language most would be obvious.
St.Helens are the masters at exploiting this rule and would not be as good if they played to the rules and I know a bit about them as Sky Sports should be re named the saints show as nobody else seems to get on this season. Stand by for a sky cancellation if that continues next season.
Disgruntled Pie.

[robjoenz]

I think all the fuss is that Long had his cheekbone broken and will miss Saints play-off run and Brian Noble has one less option for the Tri-Nations. With regards to the apology, I feel that the media are making the big deal of it, if you read the actual quotes from Long he says he and Newton used to be friends since growing up and if Newton did not intentionally hurt him as he claims then why hasn't he rang him to say he is sorry. I think he has a fair point really. Unfortunately the media have quoted Long and embellished it into a sensationalised story.

The likes of Saints and Leeds do play very fast, flat rugby so a lot of passes do look forward (a lot are thrown flat though). I do share your frustrastration with the ones that do go forward and the players body language does give a good indication of how they threw it. Even still it's no excuse to injury opposition players.

I don't think blaming Ian Smith is very constructive, it wouldn't help in any way. Without him standing in the attacking line he can't judge on 'possible' forward passes, only blatent ones and then he has the speed of play to contend with. I think the problem lies in the fact that the touch judges are not allowed to flag for forward passes unless the referee looks to them for assistance. It's support for the referee that needs to be increased to wipe this out.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

The likes of Saints and Leeds do play very fast, flat rugby so a lot of passes do look forward (a lot are thrown flat though). I do share your frustrastration with the ones that do go forward and the players body language does give a good indication of how they threw it.

The solution, as I think has been mentioned on here before, is to outlaw the flat pass. That is the ball must go backwards and be seen to do so. Not flat with the stupid momentum rule making it legal.

Dave

[Nine]

DaveO posted:
... the stupid momentum rule ...

Dave

Please God, let's not go there! If Stevo should be hung, drawn and quartered for anything, it's that.

Rule's simple - the pass has to go backwards or directly laterally from the player making the pass. The rest is just physics....

No, forget it - let's just not go there.

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:
The solution, as I think has been mentioned on here before, is to outlaw the flat pass. That is the ball must go backwards and be seen to do so. Not flat with the stupid momentum rule making it legal.

Dave

That's a complete rule change though opposed to following the existing rules. Changing the rules brings with it problems to the other extreme. You'd enter the realms of the ball being thrown backwards but travelling forward because of its initial momentum. People would argue if it's thrown backwards it's backwards. I don't think changing the rule would particularly help here. The support to referees needs to be improved, the touch-judges need much more input, same with the video referee (juding on a forward pass is no different to judging on offside).

[Fraggle]

robjoenz posted:
(juding on a forward pass is no different to judging on offside).

That's always confused me. How can the video ref not be allowed to judge a forward pass, but be allowed to judge an offside, and yet Stevo can watch a video and claim a ball was forward, or can tell that someone is on or offside when taking a kick from a side-on camera angle when sometimes the player receiving the ball isn't even in shot when the kick is taken?!

Maybe the solution is to make Stevo the video ref, as he's clearly got more skill at this kind of thing than the existing video refs and he could do all the forwards and offsides as well.

More seriously, I agree that the video should be used more, but wouldn't Sky then need to re-instate the overhead camera that they've stopped using in the last 3 years or so?

The touch judges have no such excuse, and the Powers-That-Be need to make sure they are serving more of a purpose than just telling everyone that a ball has gone out of play on the side, or calling for whether conversions have been scored.

[robjoenz]

Fraggle posted:
The touch judges have no such excuse, and the Powers-That-Be need to make sure they are serving more of a purpose than just telling everyone that a ball has gone out of play on the side, or calling for whether conversions have been scored.

From speaking to people that have officiated the game I have been told that touch-judge only signal to the referee if he looks them in the eye and how is the referee meant to do this whilst he's following play? We can't blame the touch-judges for following what they're meant to do and the touch-judge can't intervene because it is seen as over ruling the referees authority. Rule modications are needed here I reckon. Are the touch-judges not hooked up to the refs? Can they not have a button on their flag which alerts the referee to an infringement as in football?

[Fraggle]

robjoenz posted:

Fraggle posted:
The touch judges have no such excuse, and the Powers-That-Be need to make sure they are serving more of a purpose than just telling everyone that a ball has gone out of play on the side, or calling for whether conversions have been scored.

From speaking to people that have officiated the game I have been told that touch-judge only signal to the referee if he looks them in the eye and how is the referee meant to do this whilst he's following play? We can't blame the touch-judges for following what they're meant to do and the touch-judge can't intervene because it is seen as over ruling the referees authority. Rule modications are needed here I reckon. Are the touch-judges not hooked up to the refs? Can they not have a button on their flag which alerts the referee to an infringement as in football?

Wiring our refs up to give them an electric shock every time the touchie spots an infringement would be appropriate for some of the refs, might wake them up a bit.

It seems short-sighted of our sport (quel surprise) to have events on the pitch increasing in speed and intensity but to expect one person with the whistle to be able to spot everything that's going on. I don't understand this "not overruling the ref" business, the touchies don't usually seem to hold back if they spot a fight in backplay. I've seen a tj run 40 meters down the pitch to try to catch a ref's attention to the fact 2 players have been doffing their handbags well away from the play. But they're not allowed to call in-game infringements, even though the ref can't see everything that goes on?

Is this to protect the refs' egos, or is there some proper reason for the ref having all the authority? I guess Bill Arrogant probably never consulted a touchie at any point in his reffing career, and he was generally considered the world's best ref in recent times, but our refs aren't so good and surely it wouldn't demean them too much to accept outside help?

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

DaveO posted:
The solution, as I think has been mentioned on here before, is to outlaw the flat pass. That is the ball must go backwards and be seen to do so. Not flat with the stupid momentum rule making it legal.

Dave

That's a complete rule change though opposed to following the existing rules.

So? RL changes the rules quite regularly. If the refs can't spot the difference between a flat pass and a forward pass outlaw the flat pass.

Teams and coaches learn to expoit the rules and when that expoitation starts to be detrimental to the game the rules get changed (or ought to). That is how the sport evolves

Changing the rules brings with it problems to the other extreme. You'd enter the realms of the ball being thrown backwards but travelling forward because of its initial momentum. People would argue if it's thrown backwards it's backwards.

Er...yes? I suppose it depends which way tou look at it. If it is not allowed to do a lateral or flat pass then if a player does one its a foul.

We all know the player can't pass it blatently forward so if it isn't forward or flat - it's legal.

Seems obviouds to me!

I don't think changing the rule would particularly help here. The support to referees needs to be improved, the touch-judges need much more input, same with the video referee (juding on a forward pass is no different to judging on offside).

If they won't change the rules I agree. I like the idea of a button on the flag used to signal the ref. It would still be up to the ref to have the final say so any huge ego's ought not to be put out with that scheme.

Dave

[GeoffN]

The problem isn't with the rules...it's with the enforcement of the rules. Whether we allow "flat" passes or not, blatantly forward ones are still being missed on a regular basis by all the refs in all games.
Another issue I hate is the "ball stealing v "knock-on" one, which results in such a crucial difference of advantage depending on the ref's interpretation of the incident. 'Scrum defence' or 'penalty attack' is a huge difference in outcome for usually borderline decisions.
In the NFL, it's the ball carrier's responsibility to keep hold of the ball; stealing/stripping the ball is completely legal. Much less contentious. Could we bring a similar rule in RL?