I was going to say the same thing. Whoever thought of it, not sure what they was aiming to get out of it

Player penalised for trying to speed up the game and provide entertainment

No.

Exactly.

Another thing fixed that wasn't broken.

If you say so. Try was given though.

I fail to see a situation where this rule would actually affect anything?

If a player jumped over line and knocked it back to player for a try would be only benefit for the rule. It gives commentators something to rave about! Stupid rule tho

They probably want to see spectacular flying attackers, Ben Barba style, which in some grounds would have players landing in the advertising or terraces!

Like I say I don't understand what the RFL are aiming to get out of the game by introducing something that seems rather petty. A rule change that effects the players safety or attempts to speed the game up, I can understand and adapt to live with it but the sport has no gain from this rule. If anything it works quite the opposite by slowing things down and causing pointless disputes.

That has always been allowed to happen, hasn't it? What shouldn't happen is for a crap kick like Gaskell be rewarded with another set because Williams wanted a quick restart.

But thats without him touching the ground. Williams' feet were clearly out of the field of play touching the ground when he collected the ball. You're asking guys to go against something they have known all their lives when there was nothing even wrong with the rule in the first place. It's a stupid one if you ask me.

I disagree. If the ball hadn't touched the ground in attack, someone was stood behind the line in the field of play and knocked it back and it was grounded it would be a try. Equally, if they jumped from the field of play and knocked it back whilst in the air it would be a try. The ball is still live. Why should it not be the same in defence? If he wanted a quick PTB he could have waited a whole 1 second later when it hit the ground. He ran over the line, caught it whilst it was still live, therefore it's a drop-out.

Seems logical to me.

It's not a case of not understanding the rule, more a case of why has it been introduced? What gain is there to be by bringing it in?

For years, if the ball crossed the line like it did in this situation, the defender has always quickly thrown it the 20 metre for a quick PTB and I've never seen an attacking team complain about it yet!

I suppose to ensure the ball is properly dead before it is played.

i guess it stops the practice of a player placing one foot over the line when fielding a ball (ie from a kick off) to ensure it is deemed out on the full. Seems a reasonable rule change to me

But that only happens when the ball is going to bounce within the field of play and as far as I'm aware this can still be done, so therefore doesn't apply on this occasion.

its the same principle though, so dont see how you can stand out of field of play and take the ball like you could before, without it being deemed that the guy taking the ball has taken it out of play

Not at all. If he had collected the ball whilst his feet were in the goal area and momentum carried him over the line, then fair play, attacking teams ball (which has always been the case before this saga was introduced). But how is a player already in the 'dead zone' coming into contact the ball any different from it hitting a steward or bill board?

I thought it was an interesting game tonight. Salford started really well, playing the conditions and the referee superbly. They were very disciplined in defense, they controlled the play the ball and got up quick and in numbers. That first half was superb from them, they looked dangerous every time they had the ball, with Smith bossing it, clearly having benefited from working with Mr Long.

Second half and I think Salford just faded slightly. So early in the season it's hard to maintain such strong defense and they were done by the hour mark. But if I were a Salford fan I would be very proud of their showing and excited about the future. I know Vievers is the coach technically, but Long's influence is clear and I think if he stays in RL he'll go on to be a superb coach.

As for Saints, the first half in particularly was another rusty effort. Simmons decided to give them a much shorter pre season than most clubs and only had one friendly before the first SL game of the season. And it shows, very rusty in the first half and never really flowing properly.

As for the controversial incidents, I would have given the Soliola try and Roby's. We had a debate at the game, with some claiming the ball only has to touch the top of the grass to be given as a try. Gaskell looked offside, but if Lee Smith at Old Trafford was onside, then so was Gaskell.

not sure i understand where you are coming from?

he is making a play for the ball before it has hit the ground, how can you compare that to the ball hitting a billboard?

i think the way the rule is now seems perfectly logical

So your saying because your feel for your own injustice, which clearly saints fans still like to debate about, it's ok to do it to another team? So that feeling of being hard done by is ok to pass on to other teams?

Whilst I think you deserved the win, I don't think Salford deserved that scoreline.

Both his feet were outside the field of play before he made any contact with ball, so for that moment he wasn't part of the game. Eddie stated that the ruling says the ball has to hit the ground/sponsor board/a spectator before he can collect the ball for the restart.

Now I believe this rule could work with common sense i.e. if Saints were attacking the ball trying to keep it in play by knocking it back for a potential try but the Reds D stopped it from happening by casually collecting and throwing it to the 20 metre, which has happened numerous times. But the ball was clearly dead as saints gave up the attack and set up their line for the handover and Williams was going for a quick re-start to keep the game flowing.

It's the old 'I wouldn't have given it, but I've seen them given' thing.

If you watched the extra time afterwards Jon Wells clears up all of the contentious VR decisions very well, the video ref got it spot on every single time. At the game I thought Gaskell was onside but Jon Wells shows that he wasn't very well. He also confirms the grounding of both Soliola and Roby's try's.