Not according to the stats, Hull 30 tackle busts (the highest this week) Trin 10 (the lowest), what constitutes a tackle bust cos I didn't see very much between the teams.

Quoting the 18th man Twitter page here
"Tackle bursts is another good stat, not only does it show you who’s attacking but how easy they were finding to break through another team’s defense. The most tackle bursts was a tie between Leeds Rhinos and Hull FC with 30, showing that the Saints and Wakefield defense was struggling which also echo’s the above number of tackles made for Saints. 30 wasn’t over the top with 4 other clubs in the high 20’s. The lowest tackle burst was Wakefield Trinity with just 10 suggesting that match was an 80 minute struggle to bring about a result in horrible conditions"

Shows how much of a useless stat it is when they say it showed the Saints and Wakey defenses were struggling despite the fact they conceded a combined total of two tries between them.

was a high shot and changed the game - how the hell did the ref miss it!! he was standing right there- I wont get over it if we miss the top 8 by 1 win

You won't get over it?



You would love it you miserable snout.
Also - surely it was BJB at fault to cost us the points, not the ref?

Well the ref missed two clear high shots that led to us being deprived of two players. Unless of course he thinks that the Wakefield players knocked themselves out on the floor. So that probably had some bearing on the outcome.....not to say we would have won had those decisions been given.

The Kelly shot on Ashurst was a shocker - and the ref was perfectly sighted; quite why he decided to let this go, after he'd spoken to him earlier for a shoulder charge, is beyond me; but there you go - that's the nature of SL refereeing.

Have sent the following to RFL

'Dear Sirs,

I note with interest that Hull player Albert Kelly was suspended for one match after entering an early Guilty Plea for a foul tackle on a Wakefield player in the recent game at Belle Vue.

This is all very well but in no way does it help Wakefield Trinity as this suspension will be served in his next game which is not against Wakefield.

I have long thought (57 years watching RL) that this system is unfair and was wondering if it would be possible for players who offend against a certain club to serve their suspension the next time those clubs meet?

I'm sure you are going to give me a mountain of reasons why this cannot happen but I and several others I have talked to think this would be a much fairer system.

I await your comments.

Many thanks.'

Wonder if I'll get a reply?

Sounds like a cracking idea to me

Finally got a reply from the RFL:-

Thanks for the e-mail, apologies for the slightly delayed response.
 
'It is our policy not to reply to individuals around their questions and queries regarding the disciplinary system and process.
 
All cases are heard by the independent Operational Rules Tribunal.
 
By following the link below you can view a summary of this process and all current on field charges'

Very helpful.......not.

I suppose they were hardly going to say, "good idea."

The reason it wouldn't work is because a player may never play against that side again. It could be in a cup game in a lower division. It could be a player about to retire, both actually and in the Denny Solomona sense, or join the NRL. A player could be injured for the next scheduled fixture. A player could move clubs and it would then penalise the coach and team who weren't managing him when the transgression was committed.

What does seem ludicrous is that a player can stay on the field for something that merits a ban. Start using the sin bin more and players will clean up their act.

If it had enough for a ban, maybe the red card should be used more often, therefore giving the victims club a more suited result.

A yellow and then on report would do, rather than a penalty (maybe) and then nothing.
Serving the ban the next time the 2 clubs meet is a great idea in theory but, if it's during the second half of the season, that player could well have moved on etc.
The disciplinary is there to punish and deter, although, sometimes it seems to do neither (Sean O Loughlin last season springs to mind).

We (Hull) were on the receiving end of this against Saints Friday.
dominic peyroux with late shoulder charge to the head of Sneyd getting away with a penalty despite it being in full view of the touchie and ref AND the vid referee being able to see the extent of the incident. Similarly Alex Wormsley comes in late with the knees into Tumuvavai as he's already scored (which gave us an 8 pointer) but a defenceless player again being attacked with the knees is a sin bin all day long in my book.
We had (and rightly so) Jansin Turgut binned for use of the elbow to the head in reaction to getting a little facial off the tackled Saints player.
sh ithouse reaction that i hate to see and is totally unecessary, he'll probably get two game ban but at least he got sin-binned at the time. That the Saints players didn't for what are equally if not more serious in terms of injury shows how inconsistant things are.
And as we speak the disciplinary have graded turguts as a Grade C, Warmsley's knees a grade A and the late high shoulder charge to the head by Peyroux isn't cited at all.
It's all tbh no matter what team you are, well except the pie eating sc um

Take all what you say on board......but we didn't even get a sodding penalty for Kelly's high shot and the one on bjb

I suppose the only way is to send the offending player off. No doubt that would upset somebody and the players would do even more gobbing off to the ref than they do now (something else that needs clamping down on).

I don't think we do ourselves any favours by exaggerating events.
I can only comment on what I've seen, and I haven't seen everything but....Peryoux's thing was marginally late, it was a shoulder charge of sorts, more a block, definitely a bit of shoulder but definitely not to the head, couldn't give more than a penalty for that, mebbe a yellow if it was a nailed on try obstruction, but it wasn't, sneyd knew what he was doing and it wasn't going for gold.
Warmsley's was an absolute nothin, but it got 2pts probably by virtue of the Hull squads reaction, I'd be proper happy with that if it was Wakey.
The Turgut thing was, like you say...sh ithouse, I think he got 2 games which in my book is a gdamn gold plate result, because that was filthy.
So Hull win the game, there were no dodgy ref calls, nobody got injured and out for the foreseable, the ban was weak, the squad didn't get carded for overreacting to f all but still every things a bag'o'sh11e, I'm not saying the disciplinary system is any good, it isn't, its crap but you've got bugger all to complain about this week.

Walmsley would have been a penalty (Even Powell said so on the SL show) anywhere else on the pitch, the try was scored, he slid in with his knees, he might have tried to pull out, but he didn't need to do what he did.

So you are saying that Sneyd kicked through, so that he could deliberately get hit late (Risking injury) rather that score a try, it was a late shoulder, possibly to the head, it should have been a yellow.

Agree on Turgut, was lucky and he should be happy with that ban.

This probably happens to every team in SL every week, ref miss some things, it's the way it is, it's hard at such a fast pace to make split second decisions, we as fan sand the disciplinary committee all have chance to watch things back in slow motion, refs don't have that option (Expect on sky games), so are bound to miss things. I would bet there are many things that refs have missed this year that have done in your favour.

Didn't need to see Kelly's in slo mo it was blatantly obvious live....and the ref had an excellent view

Obviously not or it would have been a penalty, unless you are saying the ref cheated?

Perish the thought!