Kendall again
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 26 Jul 2019, 23:41
- Contact:
Kendall again
Leigh v Hull KR
Hull KR winning try offside due to player being inside the ten metres from the kick. Not even close. Terrible terrible officiating yet again.
Hull KR winning try offside due to player being inside the ten metres from the kick. Not even close. Terrible terrible officiating yet again.
Re: Kendall again
What’s this got to do with “All Things Tigers”??
Re: Kendall again
nothing to do with tigers but frustrated by reffs yes i am
Re: Kendall again
After a while you just get used to it. Refereeing becoming a joke. But no one seems to care so why should I. The game is going down the pan.
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2986
- Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
- Contact:
Re: Kendall again
Firstly, I think the standard of refereeing is very poor currently. However, Kendall sent this upstairs to the video ref, Liam Moore. So, surely, Moore is the one to throw blame at if the decision was wrong. For what it’s worth I think both ‘inside the 10’ decisions were correct. Here’s why:
I think it’s a rule that cannot be black and white - if a player is inside the 10 and gets involved in or has an effect on the play then it should be a penalty. But, if a player is inside the 10 and doesn’t get involved / has no effect on the play then it should be play on - common sense.
So, applying common sense - Leigh’s try was rightly chalked off as the player inside the 10, Liam Hood, got involved in the play; Hull KR’s try was rightly awarded as the player inside the 10, George Lawler, didn’t get involved or effect the play.
I think it’s a rule that cannot be black and white - if a player is inside the 10 and gets involved in or has an effect on the play then it should be a penalty. But, if a player is inside the 10 and doesn’t get involved / has no effect on the play then it should be play on - common sense.
So, applying common sense - Leigh’s try was rightly chalked off as the player inside the 10, Liam Hood, got involved in the play; Hull KR’s try was rightly awarded as the player inside the 10, George Lawler, didn’t get involved or effect the play.
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: 05 Jan 2021, 17:59
- Contact:
Re: Kendall again
I actually thought your common sense approach was the rules? There's absolutely no point pinging a player for a penalty if they're on the other side of the pitch tying their shoe laces.derbystiger wrote: ↑09 Aug 2021, 11:54 Firstly, I think the standard of refereeing is very poor currently. However, Kendall sent this upstairs to the video ref, Liam Moore. So, surely, Moore is the one to throw blame at if the decision was wrong. For what it’s worth I think both ‘inside the 10’ decisions were correct. Here’s why:
I think it’s a rule that cannot be black and white - if a player is inside the 10 and gets involved in or has an effect on the play then it should be a penalty. But, if a player is inside the 10 and doesn’t get involved / has no effect on the play then it should be play on - common sense.
So, applying common sense - Leigh’s try was rightly chalked off as the player inside the 10, Liam Hood, got involved in the play; Hull KR’s try was rightly awarded as the player inside the 10, George Lawler, didn’t get involved or effect the play.
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2986
- Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
- Contact:
Re: Kendall again
It should be FC but how many times have we seen penalties given for being inside the 10 and the player has no effect in play whatsoever? Goes down to the same thing that we always complain about - lack of consistency on how games are refereed.FIat Capper wrote: ↑09 Aug 2021, 12:11I actually thought your common sense approach was the rules? There's absolutely no point pinging a player for a penalty if they're on the other side of the pitch tying their shoe laces.derbystiger wrote: ↑09 Aug 2021, 11:54 Firstly, I think the standard of refereeing is very poor currently. However, Kendall sent this upstairs to the video ref, Liam Moore. So, surely, Moore is the one to throw blame at if the decision was wrong. For what it’s worth I think both ‘inside the 10’ decisions were correct. Here’s why:
I think it’s a rule that cannot be black and white - if a player is inside the 10 and gets involved in or has an effect on the play then it should be a penalty. But, if a player is inside the 10 and doesn’t get involved / has no effect on the play then it should be play on - common sense.
So, applying common sense - Leigh’s try was rightly chalked off as the player inside the 10, Liam Hood, got involved in the play; Hull KR’s try was rightly awarded as the player inside the 10, George Lawler, didn’t get involved or effect the play.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests