|
|
Post by bandgeekmafia78 on Apr 16, 2017 13:46:51 GMT
I know Salford have seen the repercussions of this first hand, but now Widnes' Chris Houston has been handed a 3-5 game ban for his contact with Phil Bentham in their game against Warrington.
My gripe with this rule, and Houston's case in particular is that Phil Bentham is clearly in the wrong position. The RFL should factor this in before determining the punishment. From the replay you can see that Bentham backs in to the line, giving Houston very little time or space to manoeuvre before the contact is made.
Luke Gale has also been given a ban and I can't even see what he's done wrong.
I've watched pretty much every NRL game shown on TV this season and the positioning of the referee after PTB is much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by dixon13 on Apr 16, 2017 14:06:56 GMT
I know Salford have seen the repercussions of this first hand, but now Widnes' Chris Houston has been handed a 3-5 game ban for his contact with Phil Bentham in their game against Warrington. My gripe with this rule, and Houston's case in particular is that Phil Bentham is clearly in the wrong position. The RFL should factor this in before determining the punishment. From the replay you can see that Bentham backs in to the line, giving Houston very little time or space to manoeuvre before the contact is made. Luke Gale has also been given a ban and I can't even see what he's done wrong. I've watched pretty much every NRL game shown on TV this season and the positioning of the referee after PTB is much better. For mine this is another RFL over reaction and the rule wants putting in the bin.The vast majority of players are not trying to injure referees or attack them.If any referee thinks he as been deliberately targeted has cards in is pocket to sort it out their and then. |
|
|
|
Post by redsfan84 on Apr 16, 2017 14:07:02 GMT
The bar was set with the Carney and Childs incident. They've made a rod for their own back.
|
|
|
|
Post by bandgeekmafia78 on Apr 16, 2017 14:18:19 GMT
The bar was set with the Carney and Childs incident. They've made a rod for their own back. I completely agree. However, if a player has made deliberate contact with the ref (Hock?) then that's different. The RFL are acting a bit too precious about this rule for my liking. |
|
|
|
Post by knightsthatsay on Apr 16, 2017 14:32:15 GMT
It's all about common sence.
The players know that contact with the ref is a no no. They have to be proactive in avoiding them. But the RFL have to be sencible too. If a ref steps across in to a running players path leaving them no chance to change direction then let it go. However if a player has reasonable time to change direction and glances the ref then warning or at most one match ban.
If a player is touching or has contact with the ref when the ball is dead then there is little excuse really.
|
|
|
|
Post by bandgeekmafia78 on Apr 16, 2017 16:30:14 GMT
It's all about common sence. The players know that contact with the ref is a no no. They have to be proactive in avoiding them. Whilst I agree with what you say; when the referee puts the player in a position that may compromise a teams defensive line, I think it might be very tough to ask a player to move out of the way to compliment their positioning on the field. If, for example, Salford were defending their own try line and one our top tacklers had to re-position themselves to avoid contact with the ref... I think I'd be a bit upset if it resulted in a try. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 20:42:23 GMT
Have to disagree, the referees are there to officiate the game not make a player deviate from a line he thinks is the most prudent, if the ref hasn't the tacticle knowledge of the game then a steamrollering by Hock might chivvy up their education.
In the NRL the refs are just on the field and when possible invisible while in SL the likes of Bentham and Childs seem to resent they are not the focal point and try to ensure they become it. How many times have we all said that it was a good game because the ref let it flow (obviously major/obvious infringements aside).
|
|
