To re-iterate my point, Whiting wouldn't have played much imo if it weren't for injuries but when he stepped into the side he's done that well that people's opinions have changed slightly based on form.

He has been picked when everyone is fit but would not have been picked at the start of the season. He's played his way to been undropable.

Pre-season Turner was ahead of Whiting for a centre shirt and Whiting publicly said he wanted to play backrow. Injuries changed the way Agar had to approach the season and Whiting cant be knocked for his role in making Agars mind up for him.

But you don't need to give a penalty to put an incident on report. The referee clearly continued with the play, as he followed it up the pitch and only blew the whistle after the tackle (the next stoppage). There was no need for him to bring it back at all. He should have stopped play, put Newton on report, and played on from there. Giving us a penalty was rewarding the offending team.

He was picked because his pre-season form was excellent and it has continued to be so. He would have played against Saints regardless of whether Calderwood was fit or not. However much you don't want to accept it.



And yet he wasn't selected in the centre against Saints.

IIRC, Whiting was centre and Hall was wing against Saints. That's also the way they've listed it on Super League's website.

That's correct, yes.

Just realised you meant Turner wasn't selected at centre, not Whiting.
Mis-read. My mistake.

As you were...

To a point you can.
I coached sprint & endurance running and anyone can pick up their pace and I'm sure Hull have been doing that with Rich.
It all gets technical though with athletes having 'Fast Twich'/ 'Slow Twitch' muscles and Rich probably falls in the former to a certain extent. Sprinters are in the Fast Twitch type. Rich, as has been said on numerous occasions, makes up for this with his 'brain' and sometimes that is better than just raw speed.
Don't worry about Whiting's pace, it's t'other's around him that need to be switched on.

He didn't he ran to keep up with play.. Rovers should he been penalised were Whiting was tackled ..Watch the recording of the game and if he had scored the try would have stood because the advantage at the time was in Hulls favor ..The only time it should have been took back if Hull had made the foul

Right! Silverwood saw a penalisable offence, as such he couldn't ignore it. Had Whiting scored from the play, I have no doubt that Silverwood would award the try and then ask the MC to cite the incident or at least mention it in his report.

We can't expect the penny and the bun.

If Silverwood had missed the offence but the TJ had seen it, play would have continued until Whiting was tackled. The TJ would have remained opposite the site of the offence, Silverwood would stop the game at Whiting's tackle, go back to speak with the TJ and then bring play back to the original offence.

What's the difference?

Thats how I see it. I just can't see how taking Hull back 60 metres to then award them the penalty can be right. Rules need looking at if this is so.

So why didn't he do that and just play on from where Whiting was tackled without having to stop the game at all? Why the need to take the play back 60m, effectively rewarding the team that committed the offence? If he has the power to report incidents without giving the Bat-Signal, why didn't he use that power in a situation that clearly warranted it?

So you would prefer him to ignore a penalisable offence, just in case we scored a try? But then award a penalty from where play was stopped or should he just ignore the offence totally?

As I said before, you can't have the penny and the bun. Nor can you ignore the fact that the laws of the glame clearly state