Kendall again

Super League, National Leagues and the NRL
Post Reply
Let’s talk sense
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 137
Joined: 26 Jul 2019, 23:41
Contact:

Kendall again

Post by Let’s talk sense » 08 Aug 2021, 20:58

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.

Fumper27
Super League Player
Super League Player
Posts: 13521
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 08:10
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by Fumper27 » 08 Aug 2021, 21:13

What’s this got to do with “All Things Tigers”??

gateman
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6699
Joined: 31 Mar 2016, 12:40
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by gateman » 08 Aug 2021, 23:23

nothing to do with tigers but frustrated by reffs yes i am

Piquad1
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 1967
Joined: 18 May 2019, 11:07

Re: Kendall again

Post by Piquad1 » 09 Aug 2021, 04:33

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.

derbystiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2986
Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by derbystiger » 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.

FIat Capper
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 1723
Joined: 05 Jan 2021, 17:59
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by FIat Capper » 09 Aug 2021, 12:11

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.
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
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2986
Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by derbystiger » 09 Aug 2021, 12:32

FIat Capper wrote: 09 Aug 2021, 12:11
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.
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.
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.

Oldcasman
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 384
Joined: 24 Jul 2016, 19:23
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by Oldcasman » 09 Aug 2021, 12:55

Fumper27 wrote: 08 Aug 2021, 21:13 What’s this got to do with “All Things Tigers”??
It is anything R/L not all things tigers

Fumper27
Super League Player
Super League Player
Posts: 13521
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 08:10
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by Fumper27 » 09 Aug 2021, 13:06

Oldcasman wrote: 09 Aug 2021, 12:55
Fumper27 wrote: 08 Aug 2021, 21:13 What’s this got to do with “All Things Tigers”??
It is anything R/L not all things tigers
Yeaterday, when I put that, it was in “All Things Tigers”….I really aren’t that simple as to make such a mistake. 😉

User avatar
jackknife
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5097
Joined: 07 Jul 2011, 17:28
Location: york
Contact:

Re: Kendall again

Post by jackknife » 09 Aug 2021, 17:29

Oldcasman wrote: 09 Aug 2021, 12:55
Fumper27 wrote: 08 Aug 2021, 21:13 What’s this got to do with “All Things Tigers”??
It is anything R/L not all things tigers
It was moved to the correct place.
CLASSY CAS FOREVER

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests