I think you are been too fair on the poster there rhinoms. You would have to be as deluded as deluded can be to say that BJB might not have scored that try.

Had the ball gone out of play from his kick, then the vido ref would not have given the try. Personally I think that would have been wrong, but we would have just had to have accepted it.

But in this case the ball held up slowly at the back of the ingoal. BJB despite been tackled and put on the floor, had enough time to get back up, begin his run again, and still tackle the Bulls player at the back of the ingoal who had picked the ball up. Therefore how anyone of sane mind can say that the same bulls players would have beaten BJB to the ball had he not been taken down is clearly not stable.

There is always the possiblity that BJB may well have tripped going over the line, he might have dived at a wrong angle and not touched the ball. But all those are massive "ifs" that should not come into question. What is undeniable is that had Raynor not done the professional foul on BJB he would have been around that ball ove the try line, before a bulls player got anywhere near the ingoal area.

Had the vidoe ref not given a penalty try, then the game would have desended into a farce going forward, as every player might aswell commit the professional fouls and risk 2 points instead of 6. The truth of the matter is that Ganson should hvae given that penalty try, it should never have been referred to the video.

I agree re Ganson mate but after "Tansey-gate" there was no way in hell he was'nt going upstairs!!

That's as clear a penalty try as you are likely to see.

The bitter Bulls fans (who, to their credit, are not many in number) are claiming that Ah Van would have got to the ball and therefore a try would not have been scored. Is this the same Ah Van who was tackled by BJB almost on the dead-ball line, after BJB had been cleaned out by Raynor? That is a penalty try every day of the week.

On the subject if whether it should have been a yellow for Rayonor, there is no hard and fast rule, it's the referee's discretion. However it would probably have been more consistent of Ganson to sin-bin Raynor given that he did the same to Delaney for a professional foul. The fact that Leeds were recompensed with a penalty try has nothing to do with the action taken against Raynor IMO.

The point is this...

Delaney goes to the sin bin for tackling a player without the ball, and thus preventing a try. I think that was probably a fair decision.

Under what set of rules does Raynor not go for 10? He did exactly the same thing. If not worse, because there was no 100% guarantee that Delaney prevented a try, whereas the referees deemed that Raynor 100% did prevent a try?!

Penalty try is awarded for a professional foul resulting in the prevention of a certain try. That is a sin-bin-able offence.

Unless they deem that the 6 points is enough of a punishment?! But it's not. Doesn't make sense. What if it was earlier in the game?! Or we were further behind?! I mean, it could be that you could argue the Penalty Try is in favour of the defending team.

Delaney & Raynor both committed IDENTICAL fouls. Not similar, not nearly, not under different circumstances, no... IDENTICAL fouls. They both pulled back a player, who could've gone on to score a try.

Case A: The Sin-Bin Outcome:
The team committing the foul are reduced to 12 men. The team who were "robbed of a try" get the opportunity to play for 10 minutes against a weakened side, scoring 12 points during that 10 minute period.
Net result of the original foul: Attacking Team 12 points up.

Case B: The Penalty Try Outcome:
The team committing the foul are penalised with a penalty try. The team who were "robbed of a try" get 6 points handed to them straight away.
Net result of the original foul: Attacking Team 6 points up.

Now, I know, in this particular instance, the penalty try suited Leeds. There wasn't long left, only losing by 2 points. Fine. It all worked out well and good. But my point is what if we'd have been two tries behind? You could EASILY argue that we would've preferred not to get the penalty try and play against 12 men instead. That's the reward Bradford got for Delaney's foul and they got double the points we got for Raynor's exact same offence.

Same stadium, same ref, same decision and no sin-binning (2005 CC Cup Final)

Have seen players walk for what Ah Van did to Burrow. Again, consistence please guys.

Had to smile when Ganson had awarded the penalty try he was walking back from the line and looked heavenwards whilst passing the Dulls players.

Overall, enjoyed the weekend but I though that too much hype was aimed at us for being the only unbeaten Magic side. TVOC, a Magic weekend table please!!

He had a right grin on!

shocking performance I agree

High tackles are rarely given against Burrow.

To be fair, that one wasn't that bad and I think Ganson got it spot on. Firstly, Robbie rapidly switched directions, right at the point when Ah Van started swinging, yes, he caught his neck but you can see Ah Van pull away when he realises he's made contact. It looked worse than it was I think. It must be pretty hard to stop your arm swinging when Burrow is ducking and diving so much, and it certainly wasn't malice. If a 5'5 player ducks & weaves and gets caught in the neck by a 6 footer for his troubles then a penalty and a "Just be a bit careful" from the ref is more than enough IMO.

Heard this before that it is because he is s 5'5" it is acceptable. The swinging arm in the 2005 Bulls v Hull game resulted in a sending off which completely changed the game from a game to a mere farce. Again, consistency please!

Agree and disagree with this. Personally don't think that there was malice in the challenge and probably a sensable decision was made.
However I disagree that because a 6ft player tackles rob or small players around the eyebrows they sould just have a word. It's part of the game and players tall players will find it harder to tackle a small player, but a high tackle should be treated exacally the same regardless of the size of the player being tackled!

It wasn't around his eyebrows though was it. Had it have been, he would (and should) have walked. He caught his neck, not even as high as his chin.

I'm not saying be more lenient "because he's 5'5". I'm saying be more lenient "because he was ducking and diving".

If ANY PLAYER regardless of height, is ducking, weaving, changing direction, side steping, running at speed, and gets caught SLIGHTLY high for his troubles, then I don't think we should be waiving the yellow card about for that. You can't sin-bin somebody for catching a player fractionally high when said player is ducking & weaving. It opens the biggest can of worms imaginable. You'd could duck into every tackle and end up playing against one man.

Indeed he did. or "smirk", as my 80 year old mother in law described it.

Which was surely poor judgment on his part, as it can only fuel the argument of any who attest again that he was not totally impartial?

If anyone attests to Ganson being "not totally impartial" I wouldn't be paying them much attention, smirk or not.

I presume the irony of a Leeds-Bradford game in Cardiff being settled by a late refereeing decision wasn't lost on him, hence his reaction.

Other than that, I thought he gave one of the best refereeing performances of the weekend. Strong enough to manage the play the ball without killing the game with unrealistic expectations of the players.

I was at the game and we were a little puzzled on the day as to why Delaney ended up in the bin, so while have a quick cup of tea before heading to bed, just specifically looked at this incident. In actual fact I think Ganson was spot on binning Delaney and also I would like to say that Delaney does not appear to stop Royston scoring... because he never got close to getting his hands on the ball!

The off-load from the tackle actual goes in front, beyond and on the floor out of reach of Royston anyway BUT Delaney just sees the off-loaded ball and tackles Royston anyway assuming that he might get to the ball. It appears that tackle on Royston comes in from Delaney a split second after the ball hits the deck, Ganson is on the spot and when he speaks to Delaney about the yellow he actual says something about tackling a player by just assuming he might get hold of the ball! I think Ganson thought (and I agree) that it didn't prevent Bradford from actually scoring, because Royston was not getting the ball anyway because it was out of his reach, but that Delaney did take him out off the ball assuming he might. So sin-bin for a professional foul was the correct call.

As for BJB and Raynor it was a penalty try and the main reason is that, as Gotcha says, the ball holds up in the in-goal area so BJB was highly likely to have got to it first and touched the ball down, you can argue that maybe a Bradford player would have got to it first but because Raynor did bring down BJB (anyone who argues different is a numpty) then Silverwood has no real choice but to give it.

To give Raynor his due, he actual made the call to tackle BJB assuming he might choose to pick up the ball rather than take another kick at it and committed himself to a tackle knowing full-well that if BJB pick it up, he makes a split second try saving tackle, if BJB kicks the ball first (which he did) he knew he was going to bring down BJB without the ball. I have nothing bad to say against Raynor, he behaved like a professional RL player and made his choice and I think the majority of players would have made the same call... when the chips are down then you have to make the call... even if sometimes that puts you at risk of being the villain and not the hero!

Spot on.

Especially given that he played such a huge part in the '07 one.

I still don't understand why Delaney went and Raynor didn't.

It's both, or neither.

Because to put Raynor in the bin would have been "double jeopardy" on Bradford.

Leeds were not prevented from scoring by his actions - the try was awarded, with a kick from right in front. Had the decision been a penalty rather than a penalty try, IMO he would have been binned for a professional foul much as Delaney was.

I agree, Raynor should have seen Yellow as well and that was an error of judgement on Ganson's and possibly Silverwood's part, and I would hope with hindsight, they would both admit this.

See my previous post...

But Bradford were not actually prevented from scoring either when Delaney tackled Royston, but he still got binned, and correctly IMO?

Also,

Delaney denied what could've gone on to be a try. Sin Binned.
Raynor denied a try. Not Sin Binned.

Putting a player in the sin-bin does not guarantee points for the opposition.

Your whole argument is based on the supposition that a team down to 12 men is guaranteed to have a net loss of more than six points during the period they are a man down. What if they don't?

What if they monopolise possession, kick the ball out of play on the last tackle to run the clock down and defend well for those ten minutes and come out of it level? The cynical foul to deny a virtually certain try has been rewarded, which is a situation I don't think anyone genuinely wants to see the sport get into.

I'll say this again.

Raynor did not deny a try

Check the papers today, it's in there unless I'm imagining it.

I get that, fair point.

I'm just saying... the rule is flawed.

What if we'd have needed 2 tries and there was 10 minutes left? Bradford could've given a way a deliberate penalty try, lead reduced to 6, but they've left themselves 13 men to defend for the last 10 minutes. If the penalty try isn't given, then you're saying Raynor would've gone and they've got 10 minutes to hold out with 12 men against a team with the momentum.

There's a school of thought that would say playing against the 12 is more likely to win you the match, thus the penalty try has actually worked in favour of the team conceding it!