It was strange with lance. But hey we won and burns will be back to steady the ship.

I've been one of the few thats stood up for lance in his stint here but last night he was poor. We lost all direction when he went to 9. He looked like a player that didn't know our plays at all which I know isht true. He was passing to wrong players, went wrong side , threw some murder balls and even passed to greenwood on 5th!

I understand he will be rusty but looked totally lost last night.

Brinkmanship? That's a big suggestion.
However the number of wrong calls seemed something beyond rust.
The Sister Duffy Pass to Flanagan set the tone.

Best outcome is loaning him out if talk of him packing up at season end
and going to the States is true (NRL not an option).

Otherwise you come to an agreement on inclusion and game time
, isolate him make him train alone and give him every job his contract covers,
or pay him up.

Those are your choices

Very very harsh!

Lance was good last year and decent the year before. You need to remember, we signed him as a fullback to play 6! He played 6 with no out and out 7 so he struggled. He's also played 9 few times which he's been ok in the past but can't expect him just to play these roles like a veteran.

He needs more game time and Roby needs more rest or we will burn him out again. I think it's common sense to give lance more game time.

Don't forget, lance won us the grand final

Do you honestly believe he was interfering with the play at that point? Can you 100% say Smith would have caught it if Turner wasn't there? No, you can't, because he was in no way involved in the play, and he was over 10 metres away when Hall actually played at the ball.

On the Turber try, the ref handed upstairs but saiid he had it as a try. The video ref then has to have 100% evidence not to give the try. The only way he couid do that it be mesauring the 10 meters and that's impossible to get 100% right on the pictures he had so had no option.

I think we need to rest Roby next week if he is carrying an injury.

We don't want him knackered before the tough part of the season.

Ah, that's interesting. I'd always assumed that you couldn't be within 10m in a north/south direction (if that makes sense). Fair try then, if that's the case.

No I don't think he was interfering with the play and don't think Smith would've caught it......but the rules still state that he can't be within 10 of him when he tries to catch it, that Smith completely misses it is irrelevant, he attempted to catch it is what matters. (Remember Sam Tomkins dropping one for England in a 4 Nations Final vs Aus and an Aussie player was about 8/9m away from him not really affecting him but it was disallowed). Even then looking at the reply I'd say it's questionable that he's 10m away when Hall touches it.

The reason is was given imo was because of this new rule of making the ref make an on-field decision and he went with try. Had he gone no try or if this was last year it probably would've been ruled out.

No the rules state he can't [iinterfere[/i if offside. As you say, he'd miss the ball regardless. If he's of encroached the 10 when Hall played at the ball, it would of been a penalty to saints for the late hit on the kicker (which would of been the decision had the try not been scored). Simple way to avoid these situations is to catch the kick in the first place!

I thought he was offside. That said, the angle was terrible because of the unusually low camera positioning at Wakefield.

He was offside, decision should have been no try but penalty to Saints for the late tackle on the kicker. It'll probably get reviewed in @asktheref on twitter on Tuesday.

He wasn't offside. See my explanation above. The 10 metres in those situations is not drawn in a straight-up-and-down-the-pitch way. It's a 10m radius from the player catching the ball. Hard to tell exactly from the TV (which is why the video refs couldn't disallow it - they'd have had to be certain), but while Turner was less than 10m away on the Y-axis of the pitch, he was also some distance away o the X-axis. Apply a bit of maths, and he's further than 10m away from the player - hence not interfering.


The formal rule is here. I've highlighted the relevant bits. The italics are mine, as sometimes the rulebook isn't entirely clear, but this is standard refereeing stuff.




Essentially, Turner isn't deemed to be offside [iand interfering [/ias long as a line drawn between him and the Wakey catcher is longer than 10m. The fact that he was in front of the kicker is irrelevant as long as he does not encroach within 10 metres of the man. The ten metres does not apply to a simple Y-axis of the field, but to the actual distance from man to man.

Hope that helps clarify things.

When watching I thought it was no try but its in the paper so I'll take it. Speaking of taking it , did Cas use vas???