Have you ever seen a penalty given for a voluntary tackle? Even if it was, it would be one of those rules where common sense applies and play resumes, like when you here referees telling players not to interfere in the next tackle as a warning because they did it on the previous tackle.

As for the drop goal, on one angle it looks over on another it looks wide. I'd like to see it from the variety of different angles the BBC had available, such as one of the one from the opposite corner, that could have shed some light onto it. It was a 50/50 call that went against Huddersfield. I do understand why they are so aggrieved, because Saints fans would have just as much right to be angry if it was given the other way.

But teams have calls given against them. We had a possible penalty try disallowed last week, and a even more debatable try disallowed against Salford, and then of course there's the forward pass which wasn't spotted in the build up to Huddersfield's try on Sunday. These are 50/50 calls, it wasn't blatantly right or wrong from Bentham, it's just bad luck.

The statement from Thelwis and talk of protests from Huddersfield fans is ridiculous, particularly when no-one can be certain whether the decision in question was correct! I accept the anger, but the reaction has been over the top. Maybe Huddersfield should look closer to home as to why they lost the match. Brough had FOUR drop goal attempts, Walsh had one. If Brough would have hit even one with the accuracy of Walsh, then this wouldn't even be debated. If Ferres hadn't have got himself sent off, Huddersfield's task would have been far easier and IMO they would have won. If Huddersfield wouldn't have turned down a kickable penalty (which they rarely do!), in a tight match of such importance, this wouldn't even be debated.

Huddersfield were unlucky, Saints got a huge slice of luck, but the allegations of bent refs, match fixing and protests are quite laughable.

#RLMeltdown

It's not a voluntary tackle unless hohaia (I assume this is what you're on about) plays the ball. Fact is, a player can sit on the floor and wait to be tackled all he likes (there are no rules against it) it's only if he had played the ball would it be a voluntary tackle. Since the hooter went and he never played the ball - there is no voluntary tackle.

Exactly. I really don't know why anyone is making a fuss. It's very clear in the rules that if a player makes three consecutive attempts at a drop goal and misses all three, then his fourth attempt is automatically ruled out.

You cannot score a drop goal if you've already missed three. It's there in the rules, in black and white. Go and look it up.

Play doesn't stop just because the guy with the ball chooses to sit down for a bit. When Hohaia sat down at the end, two things can happen. He sits there until he gets bored and stands up again and play goes on, or a Huddersfield player comes and touches him triggering a penalty for a voluntary tackle.

If the hooter blows you can't stop the game because a player sits down. The ball has to go out of play. The hooter isn't the end of the game.

Bentham stopped the game prematurely because he knew (and still knows now, regardless of what bull he's spouting while his colleagues close ranks) that he'd made a potentially career ending cock up and wanted to get off the field ASAP before he got lynched.

Seem to have gone off Subject a bit.

I don't agree with a protest. It's life. We deal with it and we move on.

I will be there Thursday and putting all my efforts into supporting my team.

Nothing personal against those who want to do it and I'm sure you want to for the right reasons but I think it's a ridiculous idea and putting it on a plate for the pi$s takers.

just make your feels known next time bentham refs one of our games...

cant see it being for a while though and certainly not at home...

sunday will not be forgotten though mr bentham

No, only if the fourth one also misses, which it did. The point was (which I suspect, or at least hope you know) is that Huddersfield had ample chances to win the match, including an earlier kickable penalty which they failed to take.

Winning big matches and tight games is about taking your chances, Saints did, Huddersfield didn't.

Reguardless if it did or did not go over ( but we all know it did) Bentham should have gone to the video ref like he did on earlier occasions . I wasn't bothered who won either way but as a rugby league fan I felt cheated yet again . Something needs to be done about the standard of the officials but I won't hold my breath .
Safe journey on Thursday guys and let's hope for a great game of rugby league

Well, who would have thought your protest would be not actually attending the game. Brilliant.

64 of you there tonight

Nice to see the hull fans support those who protested by doing the same too

Nope. As soon as a Huddersfield player touches someone sitting on the floor, the tackle is completed. A voluntary tackle is only given if hohaia stands up again and plays the ball, without a Huddersfield player touching him. Hooter goes, Huddersfield player touches hohaia, game over. No voluntary tackle. Please, before calling for decisions, make sure you understand the rules.

Are we going to go through every decision from tonight in every tiny detail?

Nah, i counted 83 actually

He could be right though- if he's a member of chav corner they did actually spend more of the game looking in our direction rather than at the game on the field.

Don't they always ?

Never understood that, in football or rugby, why would you go to a game to not even face the direction of the pitch ?

Same at Magic Weekend, half the FC fans facing Wire fans goading us for 80 minutes, it was hilarious.

OK so far.



Nope. He was/is guilty of a voluntary tackle just by going to ground untouched by an opponent and remaining there, playing the ball doesn't come into it.



Irony alert.

From the latest rules on the RFL site:

Voluntary tackle 4. A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if he has time to regain his feet and continue play.

This is the "classic" voluntary tackle, trademarked by Chris Joynt. No mention of playing the ball there.

and

Player marking dives on the ball 4. If the player marking the tackled player at the play-the-ball dives behind the tackled player in order to drop on the ball as it is heeled, he is guilty of a voluntary tackle and should be penalised. If there is no acting half back it is permissible for a player to dive behind the tackled player and drop on the ball after it has been heeled provided that, unless tackled, he immediately regains his feet.

Or there (in this context).

From the glossary, Voluntary Tackle is where a player in possession voluntarily stops play when not effectively tackled.

Ditto.

The situation you describe I only recently became aware of and I can't find a reference on the RFL site. Best I can come up with is from the ref's Twitter feed: "Does the voluntary tackle rule still apply? If not, when was it abandoned? Still applies. Enforced when a player deliberately dives to the floor, doesn’t regain feet & plays ball prior to being tackled."
I suppose players may do this to confuse opponents and gain an advantage.

you forgot to count yourself you fool

i count as 2

Half of them?

Really

You actually proved my point there, thank you



Your correct there is currently no mention of playing the ball in the rules of the game - because it is merely the open, accepted interpretation of it, throughout the years (and codes) voluntary tackles have taken different significance which is why the rules you quote are vague. As with the rules about kicking a drop goal, they are kept precise and open, so they outlast current trend and fashions in the sport, and don't need to be updated as every new trick comes into fashion.

If the rules you quoted were strictly followed, we'd see a penalty for it every other week, as a player picks the ball up on his own line, stays on the floor to not be pushed back and the defender waits for him to stand. If you think that that should be penalised, fair enough - but that's not the current interpretation

no irony here

it is also worth pointing out if you do believe this is a voluntary tackle, there are at least 2 penalties saints should of had for voluntary tackles throughout the game



It's also an irrelevance - Lunt touches hohaia and he falls to the floor (whether that contact was enough for him to fall is another debate

) so the tackle was merely in the process of being complete

Stewards in your stand don't count

So you don't remember your fans getting angry, constantly looking over to their left especially when we joined un with KR songs, shouting, screaming.

The funny thing is when you won it was us you were goading like we actually cared.

Touchy lot

There were a few, I also saw Leeds and Warrington fans doing similar, your hatred for Hull is getting embarrassing, the only problem I have ever seen at games in from Warrington fans, hasn't stopped me going and i don't tarnish all your fans with the same brush, I understand like Hull and other clubs it is just a minority.