I dont agree with everything you put, but that just shows how complex the rules of the game and their interpretations are. I do however completely agree that Littler should have been sin-binned and we should have had a penalty.

I am not saying what I personally think just trying to play the video ref to see how he would have thought about it and rightly or wrongly he judged Jim to be both in front, in the 10, to have interfered and Leigh to have been disadvantaged because of those 3 things equalling penalty.

Also just talking it over to sort of get a better understanding and see what others think of one of the more not so obvious rules.

oh. Then I agree with you. I am sure thats how the video ref saw it. If Gannon hadnt touched it then he might have accepted that he didnt interfere and let it go. Its not an easy rule to follow.

Anyhow, onwards and upwards. If Sheffield, Widnes and Barrow would just loose the rest of their games and we can win the remainder of games then 4th or 5th place could be available.

Just seen it again and I think it was a harsh one but I trust in a referee of Bentham's experience to make the right call. That said, I thought it was equally harsh to disallow Riddy's try as Jones just ran straight in to Littler who did nowt other than stand his ground as he's entitled to do.

To be honest I thought that too. If it had been the other way I would have been saying exactly the same.

But then it was wrong not to sin bin Littler.

There is always things to discuss about the game, but nothing can detract from the scores in the record. We had our opportunities to close the game off and didnt take them, Leigh did.

All that said, even though we lost I am glad we were there playing in the game and we just need to get our heads right for the remaining games of the season.

Interpretations again. I believe Littler although he is entitled to run through our line as a dummer runner he cant actually stop like he did in our defensive line. Thing about it is if he runs through like Haley did for us then the try would have been awarded.

The thing is as well Matt that lets say the first Worrincy try had been allowed and lets be even more generous and give Jonesey the kick from the touchline.
The game would have been completely different none of the other things would have happened and for all we know Fax might have won by 20 or Leigh by 30.
Every game will have moments which will convince us that we were robbed and sometimes we will be blatantly so.
How many times have we walked from a game saying "that cheating, robbing b******* in the middle" when we lose but he had a cracking game when we win

Have to admit I thought it was a try but then I would have allowed Ridyard's try 4 us soon after.

These contraversial decisions usually balance out over the course of a game imo.

I can see one huge contradiction in the games rules after this match.
Firstly when a player kicks the ball like Blacky did and runs after it you have this 10 metre rule where players cannot interfere with the opponent until the kicker brings them onside.
Yet in the other disallowed try we have the thorny issue of dummy runners who run into the opposition line yet often get away with it even when 'blocking' a player, in this case the right call was made as Leigh had 3 dummy runners run at our line and two were actually right up and into our defensive line, taking one and maybe two defenders out.
Yet why does one rule demand 10 metres with no interference yet dummy runners can run right at and into your line but get away with it?
In recent years it has got worse and for me I don't like it as like Batley did for their 'matchwinning try' at the Shay one of their players ran at Blacky and just caught his arm taking him out but the Ref and most of us missed it, just watch the replay on the DVD and you will see it created the gap for their player to score.
I would like to see dummy runners not allowed to go into the defensive line, similar to the offside on a kick rule but not 10 metres just prevent them taking players out by making it illegal to run into the opposition line only at the line.
Its borderline when you see a player go for the dummy runner, some say tough you should not have fallen for it but I say as a defender it often blocks your view and takes your space to defend so its almost cheating but its legal in the current rules.

Yes this is a good point and it is contributed to by the position of the attacking team when the ball is played.
We all know the defending side has to be 10 meters back at the play the ball and is fairly keenly watched.
However as far as I am aware the attacking side should be 5 meters back behind the play the ball, most attacking teams are normally only a couple of meters back at best some are almost inline with the play the ball thus enabling the dummy runners to interfere with the defensive line much more easily.
How many times do we see the attacking side being penalised for being offside at the play the ball? Never.
All teams do it but it does interfere with the defense.

Michael Jackson at Saints to cost us the win many moons ago.

Ha ha very true but not in this context he was laying on the floor (injured I think which was unusual for Michael

and there was no sofa on the pitch at the time) not running into the defensive line while encroaching the 5 meters for the attacking side.
That example does show that the rule used to be their though only 2 players within 5 meters of the play the ball for the side having possession, the one playing the ball and acting half.
Campbell has since apologised and it had nothing to do with him being an ex Saints player and Saints were losing or Mals rant about having read the script and could see it coming, to think that would just be missguided

the thing is with the plays were a player runs through as a dummy runner is its very easy for the defending team to run into the dummy runner if they've read the play wrong and they can see they cant get accross to make the tackle, just as jones did for ridyards try plus his own player pushed him on the floor

The main point here though was that Littler stopped in the Fax line preventing Jones from moving across. If he had continued through the line then he woud have not blocked Jones. Whether Jones would have got to Ridyard or not no-one knows but Littler stopping in the line made sure he didn't.

Having watched the game back you could argue a more obvious crossing (in old money) was actually the game winning try. After dummying the drop goal, Ridyard then crosed behind his own player, putting this player between him and Jones. Doubtful whether Jones could have made up the ground to get to him though and it would have been harsh to call it.

Look how long Jones clings on to Littler before getting cleaned out by his own man. Even the commentary team acknowledged that he played for the penalty, knowing he wouldn't have got near to Ridyard.

Yes but IF the Worrincy try had been given then the Jones/Littler incident would not have happened.
IF the teams were a combined 15 meters apart at the play the ball then there would have been no one for Jones to run into.
IF every rugby league game was decided on post match IF's then we would probably not go, except IF.................

And IF we didn't discuss the post match IF's then this would be a bloody boring place



Top post by the way

Hey up Matt, Jonesy and Mr Littler might be really good mates for all we know, he could have been so happy to see him that he wanted to give him a man hug and got so happy he was swept of his feet and just fell over in the excitment.

Hadn't considered that, good thinking

There is no requirement for attacking players to be 5 yards back from the play the ball. They can be as flat as they wish as long as they are not in front of it (if they are then they should not join in the attack, but Ellery Hanley had that to a fine art!).

If Ellis had not been brought back early on then the first half may of been completely different with Leigh scoring first, we will never know but for what its worth I thought it was a try however the 10 yard rule explanation given, if correct, meand he was offside. Who would be a ref?

Yes your definately right just as you said it for today, thanks for clearing that of thought of mine up


I had something in my mind from years ago that 5 was the case for the attack at the play the ball and as GFB referred to Michael Jackson got penalised for it by David Cambell at Saints in a night match many moons ago.
In any case the flat attacking line is very much of the modern game.