Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 79

Thread: Chris Hill

  1. #51
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Shouting in the South Stand
    Posts
    696
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LastRites View Post
    No, it's a question. You never heard or saw anyone moan about Warrington cheating when St Helens were knocking seven bells out of them every year. It's like Saints fans are trying to say that Warrington can only win against them when they cheat.

    Screaming bloody murder over King going down, turns out he has medial ligament damage. So proven wrong on that one it's now Chris Hill going off. You don't want your best prop going off for a 15 minute head test in a close game like that. So much could happen in that time and its been proven time again that when Hill and or Cooper go off Warrington tend to lose their hold. It's not a smart tactic imo.
    The problem is that King's pain only became unbearable when we had the ball on your line. As usual for a Wire fan you lack understanding of what is really happening and just alter the facts to support your nefarious behaviour

  2. #52
    Starting A Programme Collection Roger Moore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Warrington
    Posts
    581
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LastRites View Post
    No, it's a question. You never heard or saw anyone moan about Warrington cheating when St Helens were knocking seven bells out of them every year. It's like Saints fans are trying to say that Warrington can only win against them when they cheat.

    Screaming bloody murder over King going down, turns out he has medial ligament damage. So proven wrong on that one it's now Chris Hill going off. You don't want your best prop going off for a 15 minute head test in a close game like that. So much could happen in that time and its been proven time again that when Hill and or Cooper go off Warrington tend to lose their hold. It's not a smart tactic imo.
    You do want your best prop going off for a substitution when he's blowing through his a**e after having done his stint. The ideal as you know is to get him a 15 minute rest without using up a substitution. Now how would you manage that I wonder.
    Loyal and true, not a glory hunter.

  3. #53
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,178
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Moore View Post
    You do want your best prop going off for a substitution when he's blowing through his a**e after having done his stint. The ideal as you know is to get him a 15 minute rest without using up a substitution. Now how would you manage that I wonder.
    I think the real concern is that a plodder like Hill is their best prop.

  4. #54
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    I suppose what should be done is that the RFL should look at the amount of HIAs a player has, and even if they pass all of them they need to be stood down for a few games. At the moment the science is incomplete and many small knocks could build up (the same as heading a ball in football).

    If this was done then it would stop the cheating of the HIA rule.

  5. #55
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,871
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    I suppose what should be done is that the RFL should look at the amount of HIAs a player has, and even if they pass all of them they need to be stood down for a few games. At the moment the science is incomplete and many small knocks could build up (the same as heading a ball in football).

    If this was done then it would stop the cheating of the HIA rule.
    Sounds like good advice to me. Another alternative is make Hill play games without a skull cap like all the other tough props in superleague.

  6. #56
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Scouse Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blatherings on That Saints podcast.Back home in St.Helens and in the South stand for service
    Posts
    8,685
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Chris Hill has passed more tests than a driving examiner. I can't recall him being unable to return to play......clearly a tactic and a very disingenuous one given the player welfare issues in the game.
    Learned comment from The Don

  7. #57
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,672
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Hill is a cheat. End of story. I think there was one in the cup final where he went off without any contact to the head in the replay, and I mean ANY. . Always happens to be when he's due to come off anyway. Seems to be accepted throughout the club as fair game People trying to defend that or explain it away are being ridiculous. Funny how 4 or 5 'injuries' the other night just happened to be when we were due to start a new set in their half, not when Wire were attacking or anywhere else on the pitch

  8. #58
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    458
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    Showed how flawed the rules are. Defending players are given a card for a shoulder charge to the head but if you’re carrying the ball, nothing at all. It’s dangerous and should be penalised. Akauola also does that 3-4 times a year and gets off every time because he’s got the ball in hand.
    The difference between a ball carrier and a tackler is fairly clear if you think about it.
    A ball carrier is running straight and the tackler has a number of options as to how they deal with it. They can run away, tackle high, tackle midriff or tackle low, they can stand there and shoulder charge.
    Now if they chose to tackle high then they are putting themselves in a position where they could get bumped off by either arm or just by force. But in RL this is the preferred tackling style.
    If they chose to tackle low or midriff then if their technique is good they will simply bring the player down to ground.
    If you see a player with a reputation of running in hard and you have to tackle them them make the tackle low - they are so concerned with trying to bump you off that they will go down like a sack of spuds.
    If however you chose to fight fire with fire and brace and shoulder charge them they in turn they have no option to change their run and it is the tackler who then puts the runner in a dangerous position. So in all tackles it is the tackler who will, by their decision, put either player in a dangerous situation.
    I don't know about you but I would rather tackle the player in a manner that neither puts myself in danger or gives a penalty away. Use their momentum to achieve the tackle don't try and stand up to them in that specific situation - there is no need
    If they chose to

  9. #59
    Learning All The Songs Kakariki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,849
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by st. etrigan View Post
    The difference between a ball carrier and a tackler is fairly clear if you think about it.
    A ball carrier is running straight and the tackler has a number of options as to how they deal with it. They can run away, tackle high, tackle midriff or tackle low, they can stand there and shoulder charge.
    Now if they chose to tackle high then they are putting themselves in a position where they could get bumped off by either arm or just by force. But in RL this is the preferred tackling style.
    If they chose to tackle low or midriff then if their technique is good they will simply bring the player down to ground.
    If you see a player with a reputation of running in hard and you have to tackle them them make the tackle low - they are so concerned with trying to bump you off that they will go down like a sack of spuds.
    If however you chose to fight fire with fire and brace and shoulder charge them they in turn they have no option to change their run and it is the tackler who then puts the runner in a dangerous position. So in all tackles it is the tackler who will, by their decision, put either player in a dangerous situation.
    I don't know about you but I would rather tackle the player in a manner that neither puts myself in danger or gives a penalty away. Use their momentum to achieve the tackle don't try and stand up to them in that specific situation - there is no need
    If they chose to
    The main thing in RL at the moment seems to be "winning the collision" which seems to be standing the player up, getting 2 or three tacklers round him and them bringing the player to ground in a controlled way to slow down the play the ball and set the defence. The ref will shout "dominant" and buy the defence more time. I wish they'd get rid of this rule and award quicker play the balls. I think this would also reduce head injuries as it might encourage players to tackle in a safer way lower down the body

  10. #60
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by st. etrigan View Post
    The difference between a ball carrier and a tackler is fairly clear if you think about it.
    A ball carrier is running straight and the tackler has a number of options as to how they deal with it. They can run away, tackle high, tackle midriff or tackle low, they can stand there and shoulder charge.
    Now if they chose to tackle high then they are putting themselves in a position where they could get bumped off by either arm or just by force. But in RL this is the preferred tackling style.
    If they chose to tackle low or midriff then if their technique is good they will simply bring the player down to ground.
    If you see a player with a reputation of running in hard and you have to tackle them them make the tackle low - they are so concerned with trying to bump you off that they will go down like a sack of spuds.
    If however you chose to fight fire with fire and brace and shoulder charge them they in turn they have no option to change their run and it is the tackler who then puts the runner in a dangerous position. So in all tackles it is the tackler who will, by their decision, put either player in a dangerous situation.
    I don't know about you but I would rather tackle the player in a manner that neither puts myself in danger or gives a penalty away. Use their momentum to achieve the tackle don't try and stand up to them in that specific situation - there is no need
    If they chose to
    The problem with that line of thought is that if you tackle low you invariably concede a quick play the ball. Given how much emphasis is placed on the ruck in the modern game you can't just freely grant that advantage to big players.

    I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I don't think it's fair that a defender can't shoulder charge but an attacker can. It's clearly not safe, either, as I think I can remember Akuala knocking out three different defenders in the same way off the top of my head. I don't entirely buy the self-preservation argument, either: a ball carrier can brace for impact by bringing the arms up into protective position, or by using a fend; there's no need to turn side on and lead with the shoulder.

    However, with things like this it's always a slippery slope. One thing gets outlawed and then soon enough people start pointing to something that looks a bit like it and asking why that hasn't been outlawed as well. Then you blink and all of a sudden it's a completely different game.

  11. #61
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    458
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    The problem with that line of thought is that if you tackle low you invariably concede a quick play the ball. Given how much emphasis is placed on the ruck in the modern game you can't just freely grant that advantage to big players.

    I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I don't think it's fair that a defender can't shoulder charge but an attacker can. It's clearly not safe, either, as I think I can remember Akuala knocking out three different defenders in the same way off the top of my head. I don't entirely buy the self-preservation argument, either: a ball carrier can brace for impact by bringing the arms up into protective position, or by using a fend; there's no need to turn side on and lead with the shoulder.

    However, with things like this it's always a slippery slope. One thing gets outlawed and then soon enough people start pointing to something that looks a bit like it and asking why that hasn't been outlawed as well. Then you blink and all of a sudden it's a completely different game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kakariki View Post
    The main thing in RL at the moment seems to be "winning the collision" which seems to be standing the player up, getting 2 or three tacklers round him and them bringing the player to ground in a controlled way to slow down the play the ball and set the defence. The ref will shout "dominant" and buy the defence more time. I wish they'd get rid of this rule and award quicker play the balls. I think this would also reduce head injuries as it might encourage players to tackle in a safer way lower down the body
    You are both right, the tackle will take a player to ground faster than a controlled upright tackle - but with a collision of the force that we are discussing how controlled will the tackle be? its really a decision as to what you are hoping and willing to do. Its about organisation and working out on the fly what technique is required.
    Personally if you stop a player running at a tackler as hard and as fast as they can - why are we even watching a collision sport - these only do tend to happen when a player has a run up from a kick return - and fair play to him he is putting his body on the line also.

  12. #62
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kakariki View Post
    The main thing in RL at the moment seems to be "winning the collision" which seems to be standing the player up, getting 2 or three tacklers round him and them bringing the player to ground in a controlled way to slow down the play the ball and set the defence. The ref will shout "dominant" and buy the defence more time. I wish they'd get rid of this rule and award quicker play the balls. I think this would also reduce head injuries as it might encourage players to tackle in a safer way lower down the body
    I don’t recognise what you describe as a dominant tackle. I’ve only heard the call when there’s been a fairly low, high impact, classical tackle where the attacking player doesn’t know what’s hit him. The following is the technical description of a dominant tackle:

    “A referee may call "Dominant!" as a player is tackled to indicate the dominance of the defender over the attacking player in possession during the contact between them at the tackle. A dominant tackle is judged to be when the defender makes contact and drives the attacker back in one movement.”

    Two or three players controlling the tackle and holding up or completing the tackle when defenders are back may be effective but isn’t dominant. All this dominant tackle business isn’t in the rules (I think it’s something the authorities have dreamed up without a rule change) and I agree with you that it would be better to ensure a quick PTB once a tackle is complete or “held” called.

  13. #63
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    The debate about tackles also overlooks that, from a percentage point of view, a fairly low on the torso tackle often dislodges the ball and results in a knock on.

  14. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suttoner View Post
    I don’t recognise what you describe as a dominant tackle. I’ve only heard the call when there’s been a fairly low, high impact, classical tackle where the attacking player doesn’t know what’s hit him. The following is the technical description of a dominant tackle:

    “A referee may call "Dominant!" as a player is tackled to indicate the dominance of the defender over the attacking player in possession during the contact between them at the tackle. A dominant tackle is judged to be when the defender makes contact and drives the attacker back in one movement.”

    Two or three players controlling the tackle and holding up or completing the tackle when defenders are back may be effective but isn’t dominant. All this dominant tackle business isn’t in the rules (I think it’s something the authorities have dreamed up without a rule change) and I agree with you that it would be better to ensure a quick PTB once a tackle is complete or “held” called.

    I thought he was talking about the surrender tackle - and that's a rule I want to see eradicated from the game.

    Attackers should be able to put doubts in the minds of defenders by having the option of dropping to the floor upon impact and getting a quick PTB. Wouldn't work all the time, and indeed even when it was allowed, it still only happened a handful of times in a game, but right now defenders have way too easy a job.

  15. #65
    WARNING! WOLF FAN!

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    401
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    I think the real concern is that a plodder like Hill is their best prop.
    This is just silly. Hill is having a good season, hardly a plodder. Cooper is doing even better and Mulhearn is coming along nicely. Philbin not quite as effective as last season but not doing too badly thank you. As a unit our props are at least a match for yours. Amor, LMS no thanks.

  16. #66
    In The South Stand warringtonsaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfie McWolf View Post
    This is just silly. Hill is having a good season, hardly a plodder. Cooper is doing even better and Mulhearn is coming along nicely. Philbin not quite as effective as last season but not doing too badly thank you. As a unit our props are at least a match for yours. Amor, LMS no thanks.
    And you're usually a decent poster too.......
    "The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
    Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............

  17. #67
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    I thought he was talking about the surrender tackle - and that's a rule I want to see eradicated from the game.

    Attackers should be able to put doubts in the minds of defenders by having the option of dropping to the floor upon impact and getting a quick PTB. Wouldn't work all the time, and indeed even when it was allowed, it still only happened a handful of times in a game, but right now defenders have way too easy a job.
    I haven’t checked but I don’t think surrender tackles are in the rules either. It’s just something the authorities have come up with to slow the PTB.

  18. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suttoner View Post
    I haven’t checked but I don’t think surrender tackles are in the rules either. It’s just something the authorities have come up with to slow the PTB.
    I quick search and I've not found a specific RFL/SL rule either (although there is a specific rule in the NRL)

    What I did see were a few Bratfud whines, going back years, about a certain 'voluntary tackle' that wasn't a voluntary tackle.

    I don't think some of their fans will ever get over it

  19. #69
    WARNING! WOLF FAN!

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    401
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warringtonsaint View Post
    And you're usually a decent poster too.......
    So tell me where I’m wrong, do a prop for prop comparison (on form not reputation)

  20. #70
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,871
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfie McWolf View Post
    So tell me where I’m wrong, do a prop for prop comparison (on form not reputation)
    I agree, the Wolves pack have stepped up in form lately, they had too after that poor semi final against Cas.

  21. #71
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,178
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfie McWolf View Post
    This is just silly. Hill is having a good season, hardly a plodder. Cooper is doing even better and Mulhearn is coming along nicely. Philbin not quite as effective as last season but not doing too badly thank you. As a unit our props are at least a match for yours. Amor, LMS no thanks.
    Hill was a good prop 4-6 years ago. I have thought him a donkey the past 2-3 years. He did have a good game against us and has been better this year, but how much of that is due to the extra time he gets off the field with his fake HIA's?
    I wasn't comparing front rows, just the fact that Hill was mentioned as your best FR and I was comparing him to Walmsley. Walmsley can go quicker than a fast walk. I agree Cooper is good, and Mulhearn has a lot of potential. Being from St Helens I grew up hating Wigan, but wanting Warrington to fall flat on their face is something you have to learn. Recently that has been an easy tutorial between the gamesmanship, cheating and tacky PR stunts.

  22. #72
    Learning All The Songs RJM25R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Royton, Oldham
    Posts
    2,098
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LastRites View Post
    I wonder if there is a correlation between Warrington having the metal over Saints for the past 7-8 years and them being seen as a load of grubs and cheats. I must say there was never any such discussion all those years when St Helens held total dominance over them. I wonder why that is ��
    In the last 7 or 8 years where Saints have won 3 LLS and 3 GF’ against Wire’s superior winning culture?

    I’ve not heard anyone really bad-mouth Warrington until Price took over and started with a particular type of gamesmanship evident to all.

    Sport is cyclical, always has been and always will be and it’s not that long ago we lost all those GF’s

    Wire have the beating of any team on a good day and maybe it’s your year? But if you are saying that they aren’t using the injury stoppages in a deceitful way I feel you are being disingenuous.

    Ultimately the only game you’ve won against Saints that had real meaning was the CC Final, at which a poor refereeing decision DID have a bearing upon (unfortunately, it will always be brought up because of how poor it was and ultimately may not have altered the result)

    Fwiw there’s been a couple of Semi final wins against us too, but Wire have them gone on to lose the final.

    There’s an odd record if you look back at any of the teams who beat Saints in the play off semi, they rarely win the GF. In recent memory, only Leeds in 2015 have beet Saints in the Semi then won?
    Can't stop the spirits when they need you.

    This life is more than just a read through.

  23. #73
    Starting A Programme Collection Roger Moore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Warrington
    Posts
    581
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Does anyone think Hicks showed himself to be totally inept again tonight. Unless I saw it wrong the ball came loose in a Wigan attack, appeared to be going to ground but was kicked by Ratchford, hitting Mamo who was stood in front of him. Hicks waves play on and Warrington go down the other end and score in the same set. Only watched it the once so may have got the process wrong. Then later a kick goes up, Curry chases and without even looking at the ball collides with Bibby, play continues and Hicks awards the try, but sends it upstairs James ( I want to see everything 20 times on every view) Child as video ref looks at it twice and rules it out, something obvious even without the replay. Does Hicks even watch the game. Something else I found hilarious was J Clarke goes down injured with Wigan near the line. Then when the physio comes on can't even make his mind up which arm/shoulder he's hurt.
    Loyal and true, not a glory hunter.

  24. #74
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Absolutely loving this thread. No wonder you all hide in this echo chamber. The quality of 'opinion' is laughable. Carry on.

  25. #75
    In The West Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    5,517
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RJM25R View Post
    In the last 7 or 8 years where Saints have won 3 LLS and 3 GF’ against Wire’s superior winning culture?

    I’ve not heard anyone really bad-mouth Warrington until Price took over and started with a particular type of gamesmanship evident to all.

    Sport is cyclical, always has been and always will be and it’s not that long ago we lost all those GF’s

    Wire have the beating of any team on a good day and maybe it’s your year? But if you are saying that they aren’t using the injury stoppages in a deceitful way I feel you are being disingenuous.

    Ultimately the only game you’ve won against Saints that had real meaning was the CC Final, at which a poor refereeing decision DID have a bearing upon (unfortunately, it will always be brought up because of how poor it was and ultimately may not have altered the result)

    Fwiw there’s been a couple of Semi final wins against us too, but Wire have them gone on to lose the final.

    There’s an odd record if you look back at any of the teams who beat Saints in the play off semi, they rarely win the GF. In recent memory, only Leeds in 2015 have beet Saints in the Semi then won?


    Talking sense will get you nowhere with Wire fans pal

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •