Saints didn't indulge in head shots all night or grapple tackles. I only saw one high shot from Cunningham and KR were given a penalty as a result. If he did commit more than one then I would agree, he should have been binned. Cunningham was one of our poorer players last night. When he has a blinder he stands out; when he is poor he stands out. He's a big guy, in more ways than one, and so stands out no matter how he plays.


As explained by the Sky guys last night - who analysed that try to the nth degree (I watched the match back after returning from the ground) - first of all, the players involved in the play have to have both feet infront of the kicker when the ball is kicked to be judged offside. Secondly, those players have to be involved in the subsequent play. If both those criteria are fulfilled then the play is deemed offside and the try should not have been given. The argument revolved around whether the far wing players of Flannery and Foster had both their feet in front of the kicker when the ball was kicked. Presumably Thaler decided they did not. However, even if he had decided that they did, he then had to look at whether those same players were involved with the ball when it came down. Neither was. Neither Flannery nor Foster touched that ball when it reached ground and the tv footage showed that quite clearly. Dixon, who scored the try, was not one of the players to the kicker's left when the kick was made, so he was never going to be included in the judgement. He didn't knock on either. He simply gathered the ball under him, cleanly, was told to play on, which he did, and scored.

The decision hung on whether Flannery and Foster had both feet in front of the kicker when he kicked. Thaler thought not. The Sky guys thought he did but then on closer examination Phil Clark thought not, Eddie thought they did. It was one of those 50/50s that went our way, which was a sickener for you guys.

I didn't think that was a 50/50. Still, even 20/80s go against you one in five (without adjustment for what is known in East Hull Mathematics as the Thaler constant!).
The week before we got away with some forward passes in the build up to tries, so it's swings and roundabouts in some respects. Neither those nor that decision last night were in the least crucial in deciding the outcome. Much as it rubbed salt in wounds, I'd rather it happened then than in a close game.
We had the Watts try at Cas, which might not have been given on another day, or against some other teams (by which I mean [uunconcscious[/u bias) that won that game.
Childs, who I thought was very fair when our opponents were unfashionable Wakefield (another game we ultimately lost abjectly), seemed slightly in awe of Saints. You get that with Saints and Leeds (or any successful team of any era, I'm sure), but maybe Childs inexperience exaccerbated it a bit.

You have to have both your feet behind the BALL to be onside, either that or the kicker has to run you onside. If you have one foot or both in front of the ball as it is kicked you are offside. Foster was actually onside, Flannery wasn't though.

My bad. Either way, neither were involved in touching the ball when it came down and whether Flannery was or wasn't onside - and I couldn't tell from the camera angle (hence my claim to a 50/50 call) - wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't involved in the subsequent action. Which he wasn't.

Foster is the player on the wing, Flannery is stood 3 metres in front of the kicker. Flannery is involved in the next action as he then proceeds to move forward and is actually involved in going for the ball, knocking Briscoe out of the way in the process. A player who is offside must not encroach within ten metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball (which he clearly does in order to be involved going for the ball) and he must must not infuence the game in any way.

Are you really suggesting that your red line represents a straight line across the pitch?

It starts off about 4 metres from the 1/2 way line and looks like it will end up about 8 metres away

does anyone like me think rovers went for revenge but it did not come off so they started to try to stop by any means they could i hope not but it could answer a reason for the indiscipline

No.Not even in my wildest dreams would we put a cricket score on Saints.

NO, they got on a roll and we couldnt stop them, hence all the penalties and indiscipline, and hence the scoreline. The only positive was the final whistle and the fact we dont have to play them again.

Old Trafford anyone

4 now

And 6 players still to return.

4th vs 9th. As Rovers fans told us many times last year, the league table doesn't lie.

there is the over achieving opinion too

Which is spot on. Just seen the table on Sky Sports. Mr B and I had a right good laugh as we're so average yet above Leeds, Hudds and Bradford

. Looks like top 4 will be Leeds, Wigan, Wire and Saints, with Bradford, Hudds, Rovers, FC and Wakey fighting for 5-8.

Team in 4th over achieve shocker, have we flashed back a year

Your correct, it doesn't. You were $hite last season, we are $hite this season.

is not having a good number 6 our problem with a good number 6 if dobbo got injured he would be able to fit in look at d maguire for leads if this season we cant get one promote the young kids who play 6 now

Stop talking crap.

what?

Hmmm, not sure about this tbh. A few good results and all of a sudden it's money well spent. Personally, stand off aside, I actually think we have a better squad this year than last. Ratu and Cook seem to be getting a bit of stick, but Cook has played well recently after a slow start, and Ratu is still young and was probably the only Hull KR player to leave the pitch at Murrayfield with any credibility.

I still think Fozzard's contribution last year was underrated, but Clinton is a clear improvement, and Hodgson already looks a better hooker than Fitzhenry ever did.

IMO, our average to awful form this year has come from a lack of quality in pivotal positions. Murrell gives 100% every time he plays, he's versatile and an important squad member, but he's no SL hooker or half back. I'Anson played well when he came in against Cas, but since then his decision making has been poor. Even if we only used Cooke to half his ability, he did the simple things right and we've missed that.

I still think JM is the man for us, but I think his tinkering and over-confidence in certain players in certain positions has backfired this year. Had we had a decent off half and gone with Fisher and Hodgson as hookers from the start of the season, I think we'd have seen much more cohesion and more performances like last year.

I think it (the downturn in fortunes) is mainly about form, confidence and intensity rather than than a drop in quality or ability. Last year they were generally good, this year it has been very up and down.
I don't like the overachieving argument, because it has often been presented alongside implications that Rovers were unusually lucky in 2009 or that other teams have, almost by definition, failed if the finish behind Hull KR. However, I'm happy to acknowledge that 4th in the league was a good performance. Now the team is not performing so well. We're missing a stand-off, but otherwise I'm content enough with how the team looks, on paper.
Teams go through cycles, though. We always want to 'kick on' and build on improvements each year, but just as often you find the peak has already been reached. I don't think 2009 was a year of overachievement, but more that this cycle perhaps reached its peak. If this is the downswing, it hasn't been too precipitous, IMO.
We have though, very roughly, followed Catalans progress doing approximately what they did a year earlier since arriving in SL. That makes me nervous. Just because a peak has been passed, doesn't mean the bottom has been reached...
Still, these cycles are what keep sport interesting, IMO.

Good post, and I agree with most of it. However, there is a couple of fundamental flaws in our game at the moment. We have been sussed out defensively, we compress far too much, so teams now know to shift it wide quickly and they get a stroll in for a try. Our attack is far too Dobson-focused, meaning that you stop him (in particular his short kicking near the line) and you stop Rovers.

Its not just about consistency, its about adapting and evolving. We have failed to move on since the end of last season when teams started to exploit our defence. We need to work on our patterns and the speed of our sliding defence if we are to get anything out of 2010.

Which goes back to the old cliché of the best form of defence being attack. Our defending has been woeful at times, but when you're having to defend your line as much as we do in games, fatigue sets in, confidence drains and mistakes appear.