The attacking team has the right to play the ball as quick as they can. If the markers are not square PENALTY. It's like in football, if a player get's a slight nudge in the area and goes down it's not a penalty, but anywhere else on the field it's a free kick. If were we running the ball out from our 25 and it happened, it would have been given. The fact that it was in front of the posts with 15 seconds to go made all the difference. We had our chance and blew it, but you are looking for consistency in how the game is run and at the moment we are not getting it.

What nonsense. Ref's only penalise players for not being square where they go on to make a tackle/interfere with play (and obviously sometimes a hooker will exploit this and run straight at the player).

If ref's did what your suggesting and blew every time a marker isn't square we'd have a penalty [uevery[/u time a team got a quick play the ball - do you really want see an extra 20 penalties per match??? (Maybe you should go and watch Yawnion instead)

So every time a player breaks a law of the game it shouldn't be penalised?

A player who isn't square has not broken the laws of the game so shouldn't be penalised. (He's technically "out of play"icon_wink.gif

A player who isn't square and then makes a tackle has broken the laws of the game and should be penalised.

Forcing the ball carrier to change direction or avoid the player not square is also breaking a law of the game, in fact the same one you just used.

Eh? If you're not square the ball carrier can run into you and he get's a penalty no-one is forcing him to avoid you.

Here you go here's the letter of the law [uintention[/u is required....

[iRetire at play-the-ball (g) players of the side not in possession other than the player taking part in the play-the-ball and the acting half back are out of play if they fail to retire ten (10) metres from the point at which the ball is played or to their own goal lines. Players of the side in possession other than the player taking part in the play-the-ball and the acting halfback must retire behind their players involved in the play-the-ball or to their own goal line.

(h) having retired the distance prescribed in the preceding paragraph no player of the team not in possession may advance until the ball has cleared the ruck. A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.

Penalise intentional interference 10.(g) =#FF0000If the ball is played quickly, all players will not necessarily have time to retire the prescribed distance. They should be penalised only if they intentionally interfere with play – either actively or passively.
[/i

From [urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/11_tackle_and_playtheball[/url

So it IS a penalty if the hooker decided to step around the not square marker - he is passively interfering in the play there.

Well I've rewatched the game on tv and consider the ref did a pretty good job. There are one or two slightly contentious decisions but nothing I'd say he got blatantly wrong.

The 2 Leeds 'tries' disallowed for forward passes in the 1st half were marginal at best. On another day both might be given and you can bet had it been Cas scoring the tries most Cas fans would have been upset with em being ruled off.

The tackle on McGuire at the end was slightly high and justified a penalty though it was a cruel way to lose. But then we should have won the game in 80 minutes and blew it by a couple of silly errors most notably Ben Davies forward pass that gave Leeds the great field position from which they scored their equalising try.

One official who I thought did an outstanding job was the blonde haired linesman. Unlike the majority of linesman who try their best to be invisible he assisted the referee with some very good decisions but without trying to become the centre of attention. He looked suspiciously like the guy who has refereed a few games this season - which might explain his confidence to make a decision as a linesman.

Not sure if you are on about the PTB before the drop-goal attempt (tackle 2) or the PTB for the drop-goal attempt (tackle 3) as both could have been penalised. On tackle 2 Peacock isn't square and involves himself in the tackle. Penalty should have been given. On tackle 3 both Peacock and everyone's favourite player Danny McGuire are stood side by side. McGuire uses this advantage to scoot around the PTB and successfully challenge Rangi Chases as he lines up for the drop-goal.

Good post. Nice to see that someone can be impartial. I think that sums it up quite well. If we had lost, you can bet we'd have been up in arms about the disallowed tries (in reality our inability to convert chances would be more of a concern), but that only goes to show that the decisions evened themselves out over the course of the game. I could argue that we got the rough end of a few more decisions, but to be quite honest, as we won, I'm not going through the entire game picking the bones out of each and every decision.

Yep, the same touch judge who had to point out one of the worst high tackles of 2011 performed by none other than D. McGuire as Bentham had somehow ignored it, despite later penalising a slap on the shoulder to end the game. Consistency?

It was the one before where Danny Orr tried side stepping through the line, but this one is just has good. In regards to the guy from the previous post, saying that they can be not square as long as they don't make a tackle, what a load of sh*t!!! The game has gone now, but it's the fact that it should have been a penalty with would have handed the game to Cas on a plate, but wasn't given.

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Not sure if you are on about the PTB before the drop-goal attempt (tackle 2) or the PTB for the drop-goal attempt (tackle 3) as both could have been penalised. On tackle 2 Peacock isn't square and involves himself in the tackle. Penalty should have been given. On tackle 3 both Peacock and everyone's favourite player Danny McGuire are stood side by side. McGuire uses this advantage to scoot around the PTB and successfully challenge Rangi Chases as he lines up for the drop-goal. img52.imageshack.us/img52/866/20 ... mifina.jpg'" Rather than posting misleading freeze frames why don't you just watch the video [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0137yrl/Rugby_League_Challenge_Cup_2011_SemiFinal_Castleford_v_Leeds/here[/url at about 2h05. As you'll see at every PTB after the scrum Cas pass the ball straight away therefore there's no possibility of a penalty. As for Peacock being involved in the tackle he does so after the onside players make the initial tackle (i.e. he gains no advantage) - read the rules above that's not a penalty.

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Not sure if you are on about the PTB before the drop-goal attempt (tackle 2) or the PTB for the drop-goal attempt (tackle 3) as both could have been penalised. On tackle 2 Peacock isn't square and involves himself in the tackle. Penalty should have been given. On tackle 3 both Peacock and everyone's favourite player Danny McGuire are stood side by side. McGuire uses this advantage to scoot around the PTB and successfully challenge Rangi Chases as he lines up for the drop-goal. img52.imageshack.us/img52/866/20 ... mifina.jpg'" Rather than posting misleading freeze frames why don't you just watch the video [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0137yrl/Rugby_League_Challenge_Cup_2011_SemiFinal_Castleford_v_Leeds/here[/url at about 2h05. As you'll see at every PTB after the scrum Cas pass the ball straight away therefore there's no possibility of a penalty. As for Peacock being involved in the tackle he does so after the onside players make the initial tackle (i.e. he gains no advantage) - read the rules above that's not a penalty.

Hey it's not my opinion its in the rules of the game in black and white.

[uIf the ball is played quickly, all players will not necessarily have time to retire the prescribed distance. They should be penalised only if they intentionally interfere with play – either actively or passively.[/u

Danny McGuire the dreaded enforcer





How bitter are you - it wasn't even your team that lost!

I have watched it and when Ben Davis plays the ball, Peacock is offside and he is not square (Had plenty of time to get back). On the next PTB, Buderaus is not square and runs round the rook to try to put Chase off. BOTH PENALTIES!!!!

As were all nit picking here, when we went for the drop goal right at the end of the game the one where danny orr charged it down, well he was well offside,penalty to leeds under the sticks, game over

besides this how many times this season would our 2 tries that were disallowed for forward passes, would they have been awarded?

Cas had 2 chances throughout the game one of which chase scored,jones was held up close on your other only chance

Bit silly inviting me to watch the video. Where do you think I got the still from? And there is nothing misleading about it, as can be seen clearly from anyone who wishes to watch the video, neither of the markers were square. Any frame would have shown that.


I'm not sure what you mean here. If the markers aren't square and interfere with play it is a straight-forward penalty. In this instance, both McGuire and Peacock were at fault and both charged at Rangi Chase. Penalty.


Read them yourself, he intentionally interfered with play from an offside position, therefore it's a penalty.

Every time on Sky.

So if I run at an offside player it's no penalty. If he tackles me it's a penalty. What part of that rule are you misunderstanding?

Watch the video - no one ran at or was tackled by the players you're saying weren't square - the ball was passed cleanly away from dummy half. Peacock later joins a tackle (as third man in) but as the rules state "A player who is out of play [umay again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost[/u".

If your this upset about a Leeds-Cas game, how bad are you if a decision goes against wigan?

Gutted we lost but some of the posts really are not pointing at why we actually lost this match. In the second half we gave away far too many penalties which took leeds from there own 30 to our 30. This eventually changed the score from 8-2 to 8-8. We have been the same all season giving away penalties from which teams score. Come on Terry surely you must know this and need to drill into certain players jones,ferres,mc oldrick etc that this is going to cost us if not careful a top 8 finish.
Come on the tigers will be their fri to see them give away too many penalties again against Leeds and to be honest I cant see us winning that game either revenge or not. Hope the tigers prove me wrong though.

Is anyone who disagrees with you "upset"?



The Peacock offside would be given in plenty of games. It stands to reason that if there was no advantage to be gained from joining the tackle then he wouldn't have done so. There was only one man in the tackle after all, and it is a pretty bold assumption to say that Cas lost no advantage from a second tackler wrapping up the ball. But even if you ignore that one, the Chase drop-goal attempt was clearly interfered with by 2 players in off-side positions.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZHSjziIzAYI wonder how Phil Bentham felt about awarding that penalty[/url.

Ferres would have had a walk in try if he had kicked a loose ball straight and not into touch.
And seen as Webb throws about half a dozen forward passes a game i expect you would score atleast from 2 of them.