Yep. I've read this thread, the one on the VT and Wilkin's comments as reported and am yet to discover what Bailey actually did and when.

It is - only to demonstrate 2 things:

1 - The ability TMFMISL has at getting under the opponents skin.

2 - James Graham's achilles heel - how easily he can be got at.




That's it. The rest's moot.

I disagree, the laws of the game are far from moot although on that occassion I'm willing to accept the possibility that the official was unaware of the law.

__________



No as that would be disproportionate to the offence given the situation. Their entry to the field of play at that moment didn't effect the outcome of the game or any play while the game was still in progress.

A warning letter to the club should suffice.

That's a massive precedent to set, grand final,3 trys up, final hooter gone, subs enter field to join other team mates, the game will never be the same again.

But the game wasn't still in progress was it? The game had stopped for the conversion. Had the ref ignored the hooter and decided that play should commence, then we it would have been a kick from the centre of the pitch to restart the game, and I am pretty certain the ref would have asked everybody non playing to leave the pitch.

But in this instance play had stopped. Everyone around the stadium knew the hooter had gone, and players and officials were walking on to the pitch. At the side of the pitch Cunningham was hugging congratulatory to McDermott on the sideline.

You would have had a point had the hooter not gone and the game was going to be restarted, but it had gone, game finished, and therefore absolutely no point.

Sinfield still had the conversion to attempt and if successful two points would be added to the Leeds total and were in the event. Therefore I personally find it difficult to conclude the game was not still in progress.



Not sure how you know this to be true but in any case it would only need the referee to not realise the hooter had sounded for a problem to arise. It's hardly as if this has never happened before in RL. Rarely a season goes by without such an incident occurring somewhere in the game.

Was this on or off the field of play while the game was still in progress? Coaches often start exchanging pleasantaries prior to the end of the match. I'd therefore not attach any significance to the exchange between McDermott and Cunningham with regards to signalling the final whistle.



The point stands. Players who had been replaced and not eligible to return had entered the field of play prior to the end of the game and to the best of my knowledge that is not supposed to happen.

In addition those players then took up station with the rest of their team-mates in an offside position (they are required to retire to their own half as far as I recall) while the conversion attempt was taken.

Poor form from the officials that allowed these flagrant breaches to occur.

tvoc, had the referee ignored the hooter and decided the game should continue, what do you think would have happened?

He would have cleared the pitch of anybody who was not the 13 from each side, and started with a kick from the centre of the field. Nice and easy, no fuss.

Had Leeds had a penalty at the point you are talking about, then your viewpoint would have been quite valid, as the ball could have bounced off the post and back into play for continuing the game until dead. But it wasn't a penalty, it was a dead situation and the hooter went.

I go back to the pedantic statement I used earlier.

The rules on players entering and leaving the pitch need to be pedantic and if they are there then they should be enforced at all times, IMO.

The eligible Leeds players were then collectively stood in an offside position at the conversion attempt. What would have happened had the opposition done likewise, perhaps choosing to form a wall two feet in front of the ball stood on the tee? Would the referee have turned a blind eye to that also?

I'd be making the same comments if the roles were reversed.

According to Wilkin, Bailey 'fronted up' to them. That describes more of an aggressive attitude than saying 'potentially hurtful things'. He probably said some unnecessary things in an aggressive manner, and I would imagine it was during the game, when the handbags were out (and Bailey was taken straight off after).


Wilkin wasn't talking about himself, though; he was talking about the young guys. He answered honestly a question he was asked by a journalist on the way to the changing rooms after the match. (Or so Andy Wilson of the Guardian suggests)

Wilkin also said that the other 16 Leeds players were professional and that Leeds deserved their win.

In no way does it wash to accuse Wilkin of sour grapes or weakness. So far as the latter is concerned, quite the opposite. He took a similar course of action, if you remember, at Millennium Magic when he went to the ref and complained about Lima and his chicken wing tackles (which was followed by a two match ban for Lima). At the time, people like you came out and mocked him, saying similar childish things to what you have said now. But how many of your players have been spared the affect of chicken wing tackles thanks to Wilkin speaking up? He could have had a quiet word with the ref, but that would not have held the ref accountable would it? Or the system. Wilkin is an ambassador for the State of Mind campaign and also speaks up on issues of player welfare. In that context, Wilkin is simply doing what he thinks is right on both occasions (and I would agree that he WAS right on both occasions to do what he did): he was looking out for other players when he told the ref, in public, about Lima's tactics; he was looking out for young guys when answering a question honestly about what happened between Bailey and the Saints young players.

That's a lovely post but I'm still none the wiser

Even though Saintsfan hasn't made it any clearer what Bailey is supposed to have done in order for all you posters to put Saintsfan's posts into some context here's how he/she saw the Grand Final.

I think the "young guys" in the team probably need to look after Wilkin to be honest.

On a rugby league pitch the pen is definately [inot[/i mightier than the sword.

Adrenalin huh?

While no single player is worth 24 points in 13 minutes the combination of losing Wellens, causing Makinson to shift to full-back and Meli to switch from left centre to the right wing, then losing Shenton causing Dixon/Soliola to fill in at right centre, was very successfully targetted by Leeds thanks in large part to the direction dictated out of dummy half targetting Lomax in the defensive line.

Webb, Hall and Ablett all finishing scores through or where Shenton would have been.