Phuzzy wrote:As an addendum to this, do you think the wholesale resting of players fed into the seemingly disjointed performance. I know Wigan rested a few but we left a lot of the spine intact.
Before the League game I was happy with Sam's decision to rest players as I thought they would lack commitment & possibly get injured or banned. I don't like trying to be clever after the event. I don't see how you can suddenly become disjointed by not playing one match. If you follow that theory 10 sides would be disjointed this week. My reason for being disjointed is the extra pressure that a motivated Wigan cause. Few sides have played well v. Wigan recently. Having said that, of course, we can play miles better than that. Was it the opposition or the occasion ... I'd sway towards the opposition having watched Wigan in action so many times
Last edited by Smiffy27 on Wed Jun 12, 2024 10:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Wires71 wrote:I think that is implied with the "penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over" - would you not read this as to include moving the arm?
The wording could be improved though.
It depends on whether you consider the tackle to be complete. That scenario would certainly be covered by that ruling but if they are still moving, by the wording of the laws, they are not tackled, in which case the sliding tackle law comes into play and the wording of that law doesn't prevent arm movement. In fact it mentions that you can actually ground the ball! (I'll repost it here for ease of reference)
Sliding try (c) a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball even if the ball has first touched the ground in the field of play but provided that when the ball crosses the goal line the player is not in touch or touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.
According to the above, the only reason to rule it out at that stage is if you're touch in goal etc.
We all feel we know what a double movement is which is why I called it as such at the time and am still happy with the decision now. It simply looked like a double movement, if you get what I mean.Turns out, though, it's not so clear cut according to the laws. I'd even go so far as to say that the laws weight it slightly in favour of being a try despite what my eyes told me.
Interesting debate. Thanks to all who joined in in good spirit. Can you imagine getting this level of discussion on RedVee? I'll just call myself "scum" and leave you all in peace now
Joined: Sep 20 2005 Posts: 1059 Location: The Yard
Smiffy27 wrote:Before the League game I was happy with Sam's decision to rest players as I thought they would lack commitment & possibly get injured or banned. I don't like trying to be clever after the event. I don't see how you can suddenly become disjointed by not playing one match. My reason for being disjointed is the extra pressure that a motivated Wigan cause. Few sides have played well v. Wigan recently. Having said that, of course, we can play miles better than that. Was it the opposition or the occasion ... I'd sway towards the opposition having watched Wigan in action so many times
Agreed. I was in favour of resting players too, and we'll never know how it would have panned out if we had played our first string in the league game. We might have ended up winning both matches, or we might have suffered long-term injuries and bans. It's the great unknown, but you play the cards as you see fit and live with the result. I don't think resting players is what cost us the final though - we simply had a stinker on the day against a very good, professional team who rarely give you an inch. I hope we learn how to emulate their ruthlessness.
Smiffy27 wrote:Before the League game I was happy with Sam's decision to rest players as I thought they would lack commitment & possibly get injured or banned. I don't like trying to be clever after the event. I don't see how you can suddenly become disjointed by not playing one match. My reason for being disjointed is the extra pressure that a motivated Wigan cause. Few sides have played well v. Wigan recently. Having said that, of course, we can play miles better than that. Was it the opposition or the occasion ... I'd sway towards the opposition having watched Wigan in action so many times
I'm referencing what Matt Peet said here when he mentioned that he rested players according to their individual needs. Basically he said that some can come in and out of the side without missing a beat (he mentioned Farrell and Cooper by name but you could also add players like Havard in that group) and others needed to keep playing to be at their best. I feel it's unlikely that everyone Wire rested would fall into the first group and you only need a couple key players to be off on the day for things to become ragged.
Obviously, I don't know all the Wire players well enough individually but I do remember certain players needing time to get up to speed in the past. Wasn't Dufty one who took time to get up to his best? He certainly had moments on Saturday where he looked slightly off it. Keighran, for us, would be an example of a player who's played himself into form so would probably have played the week before had he not been banned.
You'd know better than me, of course, which players fit into which category but it seemed, given the disjointed nature of the performance after playing so well for several weeks leading up to the final that it could be a factor.
I do get your point regarding Wigan's performance being a bigger factor and I would totally agree. That defensive intensity would disrupt most teams as it did Penrith back in February.
Joined: Jun 25 2006 Posts: 13952 Location: Forum21
The Speculator wrote:Agreed. I was in favour of resting players too, and we'll never know how it would have panned out if we had played our first string in the league game. We might have ended up winning both matches, or we might have suffered long-term injuries and bans. It's the great unknown, but you play the cards as you see fit and live with the result. I don't think resting players is what cost us the final though - we simply had a stinker on the day against a very good, professional team who rarely give you an inch. I hope we learn how to emulate their ruthlessness.
Very true. If we had won, resting the players would have been seen as a masterstroke.
I think we just have to accept that Wigan are the better side, and even if we played to the best of our ability, I think wigan would beat us more than half the time.
With Peet having a 7 year contract and the Wigan youth production line, and the fact they have a few bob now, we will have our work cut out if we want to win anything in the foreseeable future. It's not impossible though, for sure we will have to make some very good signings and continue to work on our resilience.
Phuzzy wrote:That's what we generally accept the rule to be but if you look at the wording above there is no mention of moving the arm.
I think that is implied with the "penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over" - would you not read this as to include moving the arm?
The wording could be improved though.
As has been mentioned before on the forum this is just one area ,among others, that need to be simplified ,both to speed up the game & make it easier for the watching fan to understand & to see that perceived bias is kept to a minimum. We are not all familiar with the technicalities that could influence a decision.
Phuzzy wrote:That's what we generally accept the rule to be but if you look at the wording above there is no mention of moving the arm.
I think that is implied with the "penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over" - would you not read this as to include moving the arm?
The wording could be improved though.
As has been mentioned before on the forum this is just one area ,among others, that need to be simplified ,both to speed up the game & make it easier for the watching fan to understand & to see that perceived bias is kept to a minimum. We are not all familiar with the technicalities that could influence a decision.
Phuzzy wrote:That's what we generally accept the rule to be but if you look at the wording above there is no mention of moving the arm.
I think that is implied with the "penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over" - would you not read this as to include moving the arm?
The wording could be improved though.
As has been mentioned before on the forum this is just one area ,among others, that need to be simplified ,both to speed up the game & make it easier for the watching fan to understand & to see that perceived bias is kept to a minimum. We are not all familiar with the technicalities that could influence a decision.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
