And a founder member of the fev mafia

Totally agree with you . He shone in yesterdays game . His take upfield was awesome . And to bring him all the way back . Was just criminal .

I agree with offering him a long-term contract but only on the proviso that he invests in some proper rugby boots and dumps the divers' boots, he currently wears, in the bin

Calderwood was injured right at the start of the season and Whiting was picked in the centres with Hall moving to the wing. HTH.

There have been games where he has been selected even though everyone was fit. He has been preferred to 'future international' Craig Hall in most games. He is not in the side just because of injuries, he's there on merit. Do you reckon if he's still playing as well when Calderwood is back he'll lose his place?

Also, pre-season there were people saying Turner was ahead of him for centre and Whiting would only get a look in if he was injured. Look at the thread Wolfie linked to - you might even be one of them...

To re-iterate my point, Whiting wouldn't have played much imo if it weren't for injuries but when he stepped into the side he's done that well that people's opinions have changed slightly based on form.

He has been picked when everyone is fit but would not have been picked at the start of the season. He's played his way to been undropable.

Pre-season Turner was ahead of Whiting for a centre shirt and Whiting publicly said he wanted to play backrow. Injuries changed the way Agar had to approach the season and Whiting cant be knocked for his role in making Agars mind up for him.

But you don't need to give a penalty to put an incident on report. The referee clearly continued with the play, as he followed it up the pitch and only blew the whistle after the tackle (the next stoppage). There was no need for him to bring it back at all. He should have stopped play, put Newton on report, and played on from there. Giving us a penalty was rewarding the offending team.

He was picked because his pre-season form was excellent and it has continued to be so. He would have played against Saints regardless of whether Calderwood was fit or not. However much you don't want to accept it.



And yet he wasn't selected in the centre against Saints.

IIRC, Whiting was centre and Hall was wing against Saints. That's also the way they've listed it on Super League's website.

That's correct, yes.

Just realised you meant Turner wasn't selected at centre, not Whiting.
Mis-read. My mistake.

As you were...

To a point you can.
I coached sprint & endurance running and anyone can pick up their pace and I'm sure Hull have been doing that with Rich.
It all gets technical though with athletes having 'Fast Twich'/ 'Slow Twitch' muscles and Rich probably falls in the former to a certain extent. Sprinters are in the Fast Twitch type. Rich, as has been said on numerous occasions, makes up for this with his 'brain' and sometimes that is better than just raw speed.
Don't worry about Whiting's pace, it's t'other's around him that need to be switched on.

He didn't he ran to keep up with play.. Rovers should he been penalised were Whiting was tackled ..Watch the recording of the game and if he had scored the try would have stood because the advantage at the time was in Hulls favor ..The only time it should have been took back if Hull had made the foul

Please feel free to explain this:

[size=150Unless otherwise stated, the mark is where the offence occurs.[/size

No they shouldn't have. The tackle should have stood, game stopped, and Newton put on report afterwards.

If the ref wanted to put Newton on report, he did not have to give a penalty. There was no need to give a penalty, or point. If he wanted to give a penalty, he should have done it straight away rather than let play go on if he felt it was necessary to stop the game. It was a ridiculous decision and I just can't understand why he did it.

Right! Silverwood saw a penalisable offence, as such he couldn't ignore it. Had Whiting scored from the play, I have no doubt that Silverwood would award the try and then ask the MC to cite the incident or at least mention it in his report.

We can't expect the penny and the bun.

If Silverwood had missed the offence but the TJ had seen it, play would have continued until Whiting was tackled. The TJ would have remained opposite the site of the offence, Silverwood would stop the game at Whiting's tackle, go back to speak with the TJ and then bring play back to the original offence.

What's the difference?

Thats how I see it. I just can't see how taking Hull back 60 metres to then award them the penalty can be right. Rules need looking at if this is so.

So why didn't he do that and just play on from where Whiting was tackled without having to stop the game at all? Why the need to take the play back 60m, effectively rewarding the team that committed the offence? If he has the power to report incidents without giving the Bat-Signal, why didn't he use that power in a situation that clearly warranted it?

So you would prefer him to ignore a penalisable offence, just in case we scored a try? But then award a penalty from where play was stopped or should he just ignore the offence totally?

As I said before, you can't have the penny and the bun. Nor can you ignore the fact that the laws of the glame clearly state:

[size=200Unless otherwise stated, the mark is where the offence occurs.[/size

I'd prefer him to take whatever action was most beneficial to the team against which the offence was committed.



No because that's ridiculous.



If not ignoring the offence means rewarding the offending team then yes, ignore away.



I have no issue with that. The issue I have is with giving a penalty when it was not necessary. As you stated previously, he has the power to cite the incident anyway, without having to put it 'on report', so why the need to stop the game at all if doing so means penalising the victims?

Totally agree! I've been saying this for ages. He has more than earned a long term deal. Why should a player of his quality not have the security of a long deal. I would give him a three or four year contract. No hesitation.

So, you do want the penny and the bun?

If the penny is Newton being put on report, and the bun is playing on from where the referee allowed play to finish (i.e. after the tackle), then I'd be happy with the bun. The penny means nothing to Hull FC or that game in general.

If you can tell me how Hull received any benefit from Newton being put on report, then I'll accept your argument. The ref did not need to give a penalty.

good post!my missus too rates whiting as her favourite player and he seems to come up with the right plays nearly every time.all ahil the 'stilts'