Going off topic here slightly I appreciate
But WTF!

Why stop the game if he is 80mtrs away being treated? How does that improve his treatment etc.!!!
If it is serious medical people can call play etc.

But because we do stop the game we get players Feigning head injuries (Not last night, I'm talking about my observations of the 4/5 games recently where the game stopped 12/15 times).

As for restarting the game - Isa wasn't tackled when he bumped Philbin off, I know another player came towards him and put hands on him when Isa stops himself, but he wasn't tackled. Ref stopped game and gave that Isa was tackled.

Not knowing how to restart a game is no reason not to stop the game!
And irrespective of that - Not going to the VR was the big mistake

What would have happened after that may be debatable - because no matter what the refs will circle and say they would have given play on
A Mate of mine was involved in a decision that Thaler got wrong about 5/6 years ago, Thaler tried to convince him why he was right, rounding up all the officials to back him up, he didn't, his career ended shortly afterwards.

And yet despite the concern over head injuries were not going to stop the game, because we don't know how to Restart the game!
Astounding!

Well maybe they need a rule for how to restart the game when it is stopped when the ball is live then, but I promise you that was 100% the reason the game wasn't stopped there. They will always stop at the next tackle for a head injury or when the doctor comes on (both of which happened) regardless of where it is on the pitch. Of course you and I know that once teams know they can go down holding their heads that the game will be stopped immediately (rather than at the next tackle) there will be all sorts of abuse of that system. I don't believe the Wire fans that Marshall was feigning injury, but it's easy to see how you could abuse such a rule if we made one. Just go down holding your head as soon as any break is made and you have saved a try.

I can't remember the Isa one. If you know when in the game it was I'll take a look. The game was bloody dross to be honest so I was losing interest!

Towards the end of the 1st half. Isa runs it in, collides with Phillbin who drops straight down and play is correctly stopped.

Goes back to the Hudds game, Powell is injured and nothing happens but Jones goes down and play gets stopped.

Just wait one second - Your mis interpreting my point
I'm not saying the game should have been stopped (And thus I am not saying that players/teams will go down to stop a try being scored) - I'm saying that you have previously said that the game should be stopped for a Head injury, but now it should only stop if the next tackle is completed?
How does that help in the care of the injured player, and f it doesn't why do we stop the game at EVERY Head injury point
Another case of people being brainwashed into one way of thinking, bringing a rule in to try and cover every eventuality that actually creates more problems than it solves.

As for how to restart the game - That shouldn't be the consideration
However
You've admitted that Hicks should have gone to VR and that's the crux of the issue- And I don't think anyone (Certainly only the most biased would) would disagree he should have. I would love a little bet that if he had we would be having a far different conversation - Because a player "In possession" was injured by what (Although maybe not illegal) wouldn't be classed as Legal i.e. you won't see anything anywhere that says it's ok to do that

they could have restarted the game the same as they did with Philbin, Isa wasnt tackled but the game was stopped

To be fair Isa and everyone else stopped where as with the Marshall incident everyone carried on

so could have restarted the game the same as there was no tackle complete....just because people stopped the ref was the one who actually stopped the game

Got it in one.

bit of a cop out, do the refs or players stop play?

Well you can't exactly make the players continue if they all stop can you? That forces the ref's hand, and obviously no one would complain about treating that as a tackle as they had all stopped. That's a bit different to the ref stopping one team as they are running in for a try. We can disagree with the rules all we want, all I'm explaining is that (whether people like it or not) the game wasn't stopped immediately because no tackle had been completed, and that it would have been stopped at the next tackle had there been one. That's not a random brainfart from Hicks, it's the same way the game has been officiated for at least the last 20 years that I have been watching/involved. No idea whether it used to be different before that.

yeah you shout play on, happens a lot when people think there have been knock ons etc and the ref shouts play on and they start going again.....so why didnt the ref shout play on when Isa stopped?

Because he would presumably say "No there's an injury sir" and it becomes messy. It's simple game-smarts to just put time off if both teams are stood still, no one will complain. Very different scenario to yesterday where Wire would have gone ape for having a perfectly good try disallowed because a player has gone down holding his head. Then maybe they even lose the ball after that, or at least lose all those metres, when they have done nothing wrong. I'm getting bored of talking about this call now to be fair. It's pretty basic that you don't put time off for an injury until a tackle is completed, and that you don't penalise accidental acts. It looks crap having a team run in for a try while a man is down with a head injury but I don't have a better idea for how to do it. If you change that then the system becomes wide open to players feigning injuries to prevent tries. It's already bad enough with players going down to slow the game down.

then the ref says play on.......I dont really care if Wire had gone ape the ref had already messed the game up with his garbage calls and wound players up. So like I said before do players or the ref stop the game? I played for over 20 years and never saw players stop a game...

Of course the players can stop the game if both teams just stop. I don't know why you think they will spring back into action just because he shouts play on He's not got a playstation controller, they're grown men with their own minds. It's common sense to stop the game if both teams stop. That didn't happen for the full lengther so irrelevant.