You're a big advocate of Trinity TV. Watch the games back and then tell me what his play the balls are like. I like Fifita, but I've been saying for 12 months that this is a problem area for him.

I've just told you what I think why do I need to look again just to make you feel better?

His PTB is on the edge, so what. The one he was penalised for on Friday was the same as almost ever PTB that night from every player on the pitch - so you tell me why pick on him. There are far worse out there but that downs'y suit your argument I suspect.

So a word of advice, you watch most other SL props on SKY see what you think.

All I’m saying is that if you watch them back and keep an eye on his play the ball you’ll see what I mean. Very rarely does he play it with his foot. And I don’t care what other props do, I’m a Wakefield fan, they can do as they please.

I don’t expect you to come back and admit you were wrong, I know that won’t happen, but watch him closely and you’ll see.

I've watched just about every game this season, our own and those on SKY and a ton last season and it seems that in our game that the majority of players don't play the ball correctly (i'd say something like 8 out of every 10 as a guesstimate), as in they place the ball on the floor and use their foot to roll it back.

It seems to me there are 2 ways that most players use nowadays and that's the roll it between their legs technique, or lift their leg up and roll it underneath it without the ball touching the foot.

I'd have thought if the refs really thought it was a real problem, they'd have spoken to the teams at the start of the year and then punish every player who doesn't do it the proper way but I suppose they'd be about 50 penalties a match for quite a while. it's something that's gradually crept more and more into the game the past decade or so.

Personally though, I don't have much of a problem with it, as long as the player has gained his feet and plays it post to post.

The one thing that does get on my nerves, that players have taken advantage of because refs have not been punishing it as much as they did say 5 seasons ago, is the second markers at the PTB not standing square. Second markers seem to think as long as they have hold of the shirt of the marker they can stand where they want, which is an obvious penalty but refs just hardly penalise it, just one or two if your lucky/unlucky a match. Compared to the PTB issue, imo the second marker not standing in line is far more benefitial for the defendig side.

I thought Child had decent game until that 78th minute decision, although he did miss 2 terrible high shots 1 on Huby and 1 on Pauli.

Watching the replay there is a very slight delay in awarding the Fifita penalty, maybe a call from the linesman, none the less it was still a very harsh one and potentially game changing.

If not for that 78th min decision possibly for the first time I can remember we would not have been talking about him when reffing us.

Shame really

Even for you that's a ludicrous argument. The issue isn't what Fifita did but how it differed from everyone else.

Basically in your world it's one rule for Dave and one for everyone else. Seems very bizarre to me that a Trinity fan would sanction his own player being treated differently and more harshly than any other.

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite you're face! Me, I'd rather back my player to be treated fairly by a ref who clearly holds a grudge against him.

No, I know what the rules are and my preference is that our players stuck to them and if other want to risk playing outside them, that's their choice. Our other prop forwards don't have an issue with. And if you I go back to my original point, I also said that there was no need for a quick play the ball. We had field position and we're six in front with just a few minutes left. Even Chris Chester in his post match interview said it was a silly penalty for him to give away. Do you think he was wrong as well?

I think the rules are that they have to show they’ve made an effort to play the with their foot, it doesn’t actually have to make contact with it. So a player who lifts their foot up and motions would be fine, but some who just rolls it between their legs with no real attempt would be penalised. That’s roughly what Stuart Cummins said. Personally I’d penalise everyone who doesn’t play it correctly, and with in a couple of weeks I reckon the problem would be solved. Kids are taught it from a young age, it’s nothing new.

That seems to be the new 'interpretation' of the rule, I suspect to allow what seems to be the holy grail of a quick ptb - because the actual rule says:

"When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player."

It seems that that particular rule has been interpreted out of existence now, since the modern approach is to make the game as quick as possible - such that I'd say 80% of ptb's in any given game are technically illegal; some players are more obvious than others, and I think you're right that Fifita's MO seems to be to exploit the number of people it takes to bring him down, by playing the ball as quickly as possible - which does sometimes look dodgy; he's far from the worst or the only offender though; the much vaunted 'Lockers' for example, has never played the ball correctly in his life, nor did Jamie Peacock, so I maintain that the penalty was incongruous and harsh.

On balance, I'm not sure I'd want rigid enforcement of the rule now - but I do think that the epidemic of wrestling and laying on is a symptom of the lax enforcement of a proper ptb; it's a coaches way of responding to a problem that the referees have allowed to develop. So maybe solving one would at least partially solve the other?

That's a fair point. But I do think with any rule, if it was enforced firmly then most sides would quit doing it after a couple of weeks when the penalties mount up. It's a choice they make.

That I do agree with; I've been banging on about the ruck for years now, and I still maintain that despite the egregious tactics employed by coaches and players now seeming to be accepted as part of the game, if the RFL decided to deal with it and spent the first few rounds of a new season penalising the shizzle out of anyone who infringed, it would stop quickly - because no coach is daft enough to allow his team to be penalised out of a game. But because they're not daft - they will continue to do it so long as they're getting away with it. I defy anyone to find a SL team that doesn't now deliver wrestle training - I've even seen it offered to junior teams - including use of levers and pain compliance!

I guess my point about this specific issue is that so long as the ball is played backwards from a standing position, and there is an attempt to strike it with the foot, I'm relatively sanguine about whether it actually does or not; and given all the other impediments to a quick ptb, particularly wrestling, I wouldn't want to introduce (or re-introduce) another one.

What I would like to see dealt with however, is stepping off the mark, which is now endemic in the game - and is another reaction to wrestling and slowing down the ptb.

That easy to deal with. Any player who steps off the mark immediately makes un-square markers square, which would put them usually right on top of the dummy half. A shout from the ref keeps the game moving and penalises the stepper.

Justin Carney is seemingly incapable of playing the ball without stepping to one side.

Yep, that's the other one that gets on my nerves that's crept into the game the last few years, along with the second marker holding onto the back of his teammates' shirt but standing a meter or so to the left or right of the actual PTB.

Yes I agree. Hicks remains the worse for me he literally gifted leeds the game Thursday last week. His attitude stinks of big headedness

They're all easy to deal with - but there seems to be no appetite to do anything that could be perceived as slowing the game down.

Again I totally disagree IMHO.

How is it possibly right that one player, in this case Fifita is penalised for an offence virtually none of his peers ever are. RL is a game of split seconds, those suspect PTB' can make all the difference and often do. Why would anyone want one of their players to be the only one not to take advantage, utterly bizzare especially when in this case it was incredibly borderline! If we were to follow your ethos and not take it to the limit on occasions then I hope you enjoy visiting Dewsbury and Batley.

As for CC how do you know thats what he was referring to because I seriously doubt he was. Fifita wanted a quick PTB so we could score and wrap the game up, thats what any sane person would want because the game simply wasn't won and at that point a DG wasn't on IMO. What happened next was a pedantic and imho an unjustified penalty which gifted Salford the ball. What happened next was some sloppy defending, its that which cost us not Fifita who was only doing his job.

Yours is such a negative and defeatist view and its held this club back for years, though clearly i'm not directly blaming you for that. To win you simply have to take a chance and push it but with that comes risk, thats when teams have to man up and fans have to live with it instead of pointing fingers.

I don't know where I got this stat but apperently 90% of tries are either scored because of a breakdown in defences caused by the defending team losing it's formation etc or by an illegal move by the attacking team that has disadvantaged a defender but went unseen by the ref - you simply have to push it to win most games - why do you think they scaled back the VT to just the last play? - it was getting embarrassing for refs that's why.

It's simply a case of Fifita is being picked on for this particular infringement and it's unfair, it's not a heresy to think that.

In my opinion it’s not about the p t b but the laying on at the tackle with the player looking at the ref that is more important, this should be penalised it slows the game down too much

Chester specifically said in his interview they were setting up for the drop goal.

I think you're probably over thinking this. Fifita is a fantastic prop forward, I just think sometimes he becomes a little bit over exuberant at times and that's when the mistakes come in. I don't mind players taking a risk, but there is a time and a place.

Also, I don't think for a minute he's being picked on, but if he is then there's only one way to stop it. Same goes for any player who feels their a marked man.

How about the fact that as Fifita was attempting to play the ball he was being pulled down by his shirt. Clear penalty to Wakefield to me.

Haven't seen the incident so can't talk specifics. However, in response to those calling for the letter of the law to be applied to the PTB, I'd suggest that as well as more penalties for incorrect PTBs you'd also see a lot more for very trivial instances of interference that might, theoretically, be deemed to have resulted in a failure to play it correctly. And while James Child might like it, I'm not sure I would.

"The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where he was tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face his opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of his foremost foot."

"No part of the tackled player’s person other than his feet should be in contact with the ground when he releases the ball."

I'm the one over thinking it

The abject failure of successive referees to properly police the play the ball has led to the current mess we have to endure. The problem has now spread as the ball technically returns to play when it is heeled backwards at the PTB. As that doesn't happen, penalties for moving up too quickly are a lottery. Most teams get off the mark as soon as the tackled player regains his feet.

Has anyone questioned why we have this headlong pursuit to increase the speed of the game. It is already the quickest and most physical game on earth. Perhaps the whole game would benefit from being slowed down slightly and played at a less frantic tempo. This would probably allow that more gifted players that extra millisecond of time to weave their magic. At the moment the game has been dumbed down to whoever is quickest off the mark. We could look at Union, they take about 5 minutes for a scrum and 2 minutes for a lineout once the players have had a little huddle. Successive players then dive to the ground with the ball to achieve 227 phases of play until a penalty is given. And yet they still get crowds prepared to pay for almost 10 minutes of action out of 80 and the way the BBC is wetting itself over the Six Nations defies belief.

But perhaps we are missing the point. The slower pace of Union allows for a more measured, considered, intelligent commentary even though there is no action to discuss. Then again, with the peerless Eddie, Baz & Tez, perhaps we do need to speed the game up further.

I much prefer RL to RU and RU at international level tends to be a more negative experience. The difference being at club level R U come along way from the kick and run churned out 10 years ago.
The international games are more of an event and attract many spectators who have little or no interest in the game itself. The corporate sides excellent more often than not booked well in advance.
Trying to book a corporate event at Wembley for the cc a nightmare and not inviting.
I don't think RL will ever be able to provide the full package to anyone without an interest in the sport.