Everyone wanted the salary cap to even things out, making games less predictable and IMO it's starting to. Salford have beat us, Huddersfield and Saints at home. You've beaten Saints and Leeds yet got tonked by Saints twice. We've beat 3 of last years top 4 - 2 away from home yet lost to both of last years bottom 2.

Standards of our officials



The threat of no relegation?

I'm not sure, its hard to put a finger on it.

There was the suggestion made by many Hull fans that Rovers were in a false position last year, that their relative success was due in very large part to the failures of others rather than their own level of performance. The idea that our current poo-ness is a vindication of that argument, I'd reject. Across the course of a League season you get roughly what you deserve. You don't fluke 35 competition points.
The only major thing that has changed is that then Rovers form was generally good and now it is average with intermittent bouts of abyssmal. Which is the 'real HKR', is something that people will decide based very much on their allegiances. My opinion is that they both are.

They need another coach.

But yet we have the same squad as last year and look at us

Is the game in this era mainly about fitness?

If you look at most games there won and lost in the last 20 is hull kr's fitness not up to skratch?

After what happened at murryfield and last night the fans who traveled should get a refund out of the players wages

Fisher was sin-binned for the persistent head-high tackles of the whole team. Childs can be heard warning Newton that the next offender would get 10 minutes and it was just bad luck for Fisher that it happened to be him.

I understand that but he was binned for a head high tackle, now I thought that was a straight red, put on report or no penalty.

Like a soothsayer me, can't help what gets channelled, just have to get it out.



I don't know, maybe I watched a different game (and to be fair, for the vast majority of the second half the action was a long way from where I was stood) but I don't really feel like that.

Saints were better than some people have suggested, not at there best, but the intensity and line speed in defence was particularly where we struggled, limiting our go forward.
Nothing really bounced for us apart from Dobsons kick for Welhams try.
Some were deserved but we got a few harsh calls at critical times. I'm not sure we warranted being down to eleven, although we do seem to be a dumb team at times. If the referee is constantly pinging you for offside then make sure you're on. Been pinged for a few head highs? Don't do again two minutes after someone's been sin binned.
After not having the ball for twenty minutes we were always going to ship points in the last twenty, the players were utterly empty, the effort and commitment [iwas[/i there for me, they didn't give up and threatened the Saints line a couple of times in the second half by which time the game had been gone for half an hour.
Fair play to Matt Cook who came over and more or less applauded every Rovers fan individually.

Anyway, we're just lulling them into a false sense of security for the play offs.

Ooh, just thought of another positive from last night. Saw a badger, only the second time I've ever seen one. Chunky little fellas, ggrrrr!

The point is that he wasn't binned for the tackle, he was binned for persistent offending by the team. You can be binned for any offence if the ref considers it to be persistent and has warned the captain.

Hmm, interesting, never realised that and quite good refereeing really.

I need to stop reading posts like this, I'll know the rules soon and that will never do.

Simply put, but true.

This is roughly the same team that had a brilliant defence last season though.

The laws actually state that a ref can use a Yellow or Red card at his discretion for any player misconduct. A high tackle counts as misconduct, so theoretically any high tackle can result in a Yellow or Red card regardless of previous cautions. The persistent offence 'rule' is more of a guideline I think but is used pretty widely to avoid games getting out of hand and descending into a penalty-a-thon.

Technically a caution issued to the captain in this instance counts as cautioning each individual player.

Ironically, when you look at it Fishers was the most borderline of the lot. Cunninghams on 66 mins was far worse, which he then followed up in the same set with taking out Dobson which was as bad as Cockaynes. Inconsistency is a problem with referees, Cockayne could not have stopped if he tried, he hit the player within half a second of him getting rid of the ball, Cunninghams was later, but he stayed on.

I know in the great scheme of things had ours both stayed on we would still have got a tonking, but having to defend 13 v 11 must have had some bearing on stamina.

In the games I saw you play last season you were very well disciplined, which led to you having a lot of possession as you had a very high completion rate and made few errors. You were also generally kicking from good field position and playing in the opposition half a lot, putting your opposition under sustained pressure. All this added up to having an easier time in defence - doing less of it and doing it in better areas of the pitch.

For some reason this season your completion rate is much worse, which means that you're doing a lot more defending and more of it on your own line. That could explain the drop in defensive strength with a very similar player roster.

I agree that Fisher was a tad unlucky given some of the other tackles - he was just unfortunate enough commit his error right after the caution.

I don't specifically recall Cunningham's, but he benefited from Saints not having been cautioned for persistent offending. He was fortunate with Dobson that Dobson hadn't kicked - a late tackle on a kicker is an automatic sin bin. Cockayne could arguably be described as having been committed, and if he had done a 'normal' tackle rather than a shoulder charge he might have got away with it. It was actually the TJ who caught the offence and once Childs had his report he had no option but to show him the yellow card.

He took Cook smack around the head and the second tackler also went to the headsaints were as guilty as any team can be about going to the head, they also use the grapple regularly, which they seem to get away with. I don't have a problem with players copping a sin-bin for offences, but I wish that referees would just look both ways in games at times.

I also think that Thalers decision for the last try was clearly wrong (not that it mattered in the great scheme), they had three players in front of the kicker (by at least 2 metres) and tow of those tackled a Rovers player without the mandatory 10 metres, unless I have got it wrong, a bounce does not continue play and make them onside, the first Rovers player to touch the ball was Dobson and he had two of the offside players all over him by then. Even the Sky commentators were dumbfounded by it as was all the Humberside panelists.

My concern is that it went to Thaler in the first place.

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.