From what I saw Senior's first try was held up and Hall’s was double movement but hey, swings and roundabouts.

Unless you were one of the Hull defenders I'd suggest that Bentham had an infinitely better view than you & he saw nothing wrong with it.

Well Done. You are buffoon of the week.

the hull second try was a mile forward with both ref and touch judge in line to call but didn't.
the rest i couldn't tell

hall did a great impression of a crawling commando to get over the try line



would say a triple movement!

why am I bafoon of the week then

...BnA takes out his frustrations of the week on this board, just leave him to it

For Senior’s first try Bentham consulted with both the touchie and the in-goal official before awarding the score suggesting he didn’t have that clear view of the event.

From where I was on the Western Terrace I wasn’t actually that much further away from the touchdown than Benthan so stating that he had an “infinitely better view than you” is incorrect.

Now stop being a smart ar[size=100s[/sizee and accept that there may be some contention with at least Senior’s try.

Are you still pi[size=100ss[/sizeed at me for saying that cricket is crap?

I'm still ed at you for saying its crap!

Apologies I was thinking about Ali's try which was right in front of me in the Carnegie Stand. I take the ref's decision as final, nine times out of ten they are right & even when they're not they still are.
Re cricket, I don't care what you think IMV it's the greatest game. You don't so what.

[uTranslation:[/u I've been chastised for talking s[ihi[/it.

I wasn't particularly bothered about Hull's tries from the forward passes, from my position I thought they were marginally forward but not anything to get that worked up about, I was more bothered about Smith & McGuire's poor defensive work for both those tries.
I was as confused as Gotcha about the incident where Bentham waved 6 more for Hull and I was right in line with it in the South Stand, I can only assume that Bentham thought a Leeds player touched it, but thats not what I saw.

Quite correct from our view Senior never grounded the ball. I thought Hall's was okay, seemed like momentum took him over and the Hull defender had let go of him. Both sides got some fortunate calls.

Linesmen????? I thought they had become extinct until one wandered on the field at catalans the other week.

I was bang in front of both. Seniors try wasn't grounded imo. Nothing wrong with Hall's. When he went to ground nobody had hold of him meaning the tackle wasn't complete, he then leaped forward and scored the try.

Now, I reside at the other end of the South Stand from where the Hall and Senior tries were scored, so have no idea about Senior but I did think (even from my far away view) that Hall went to ground early on purpose, as otherwise he was risk not making it or being put into touch. In doing so he hit the deck and then lifted his arm before the Hull tackler was able to touch him, which not being tackled, he is entitled to do, and then reached out and scored as the Hull tackle came in.

As for forward passes, the last pass back from Webb to Senior to score was forward but the pass to Rob for his score was flat for me and not forward.

Talking of forward passes, I think the Saints v Quins game had two blatant forward passes for their two first half tries and Child and his 'touchies' should really have picked up both!

Indeed - you could see by the markings on the pitch their first try went about 5 meters forward. Ridiculous.

It's the best view in the house and you get paid to do nothing but wave a flag when the ball goes past your line. Who wouldn't be a touch judge?

[size=85(me)[/size

Personally I think those were more than blatant. Any child (literally) could have picked up those, so why this one couldn't I don't know.

It highlighted to me that this guy is not up to this level, or I call his inegrity in to question.

I think with efforts like that he should spend some time in the conference and the knock on in front of the Saints posts was a very poor call which i think the VR should of stepped in on.

The St Helens knock on appeared a bad miss from the officials, although anyone suggesting the video referee should intervene without being asked to do so is on dodgy ground.

The forward pass for St Helens first try was contentious but not as contentious for me as the illegal play the ball by Wheeler. He clearly played it forward then stepped over it, I've seen plenty of those rightly brought back by the officials.

In support of Childs I thought he had a very good game overall. Even though I don't like to see referees ping teams while in possession (that's too Union for my tastes) and Child is the worst offender in my book (although Ganson was out to retake the crown on Friday) the one where he penalised McCarthy-Scarsbrook was unavoidable. He specifically warned him at every play the ball up to that point and issued a final warning (all on the run) and the dumb **** took no notice of the officials instruction whatsoever. He did after that though.

Now, I saw it the other way around a little, because while you are correct about Wheeler stepping over the ball he did touch it with his foot (just) and I am not sure it went forward or back. But I agree that more often than not he would have been pinged.

Agree on McCarthy-Scarsbrook though, no choice.

The other interesting thing I noticed, and brings us back to our chat about the RFL actually making public the video ref guidance notes, was that Child went straight to the video for the Saints foot in touch no-try. The touch judge put his flag up and stood his ground, yet Child said, let the video ref have another look. Now, I don't have a problem with this, the video ref is there and it was a reasonably close call so why not? However, if the video ref had not been there Child would have had no choice but to disallow the try, as the rules are clear and the ref has to go with his touch judges decision. The touch judge was spot on in his call and he was in touch.

So this is one area where we have a conflict between the rules and the popular understanding of the video ref's role. If we had access to some strict guidance notes and they said something like (for this instance), 'when a video ref is present, unless the both the ref and touch judge are certain (beyond doubt) that a player was in touch during a try scoring move, they should always refer the decision to the video ref to judge on'. This also means that if either of them are uncertain they have to go to the video; it is of course usually the case that ref is uncertain with the touch judge certain, than the other-way around, as it was in this case. Strictly speaking, if you look at the actual rules, Child should just believe his touch judge and rule 'in-touch'.

All fair points, had he not dished out three warnings to Bryn Hargreaves for exactly the same offence without penalising him and missed the blatant Wheeler one for the try. If you're going to have an "offence du jour" at least be consistent with it over 80 minutes. Seemed to be out to ping LMS from the off and just let everyone else slide.

He got a lot of big calls wrong on Saturday, all of them in one direction unfortunately.

rhinogonemad is CraigLoiner

I weren't taking notes for this one, just enjoying a game I were expecting to fast forward through.

I was getting a little frustrated at how many warnings he was prepared to issue without pulling the trigger early doors. That said I think the difference between McCarthy-Scarsbrook and Hargreaves was that Childs clearly issued a final warning (albeit on the run) to the former and penalised on the next occurrence, I didn't hear the equivalent warning given to the St Helens player although I may have missed it. I wish we had a referee's mike option.

I'd have still liked to see the Wheeler play the ball go to the video referee though, that would have been an interesting call, especially as he'd not long since done McCarthy-Scarsbrook IIRC.