Silverwood reffed the game almost like it was still 2010.

That's 2010 with all the wrestling and slower play the balls.

I thought the idea was to move away from all that this season?



I haven't had time to catch up on here but haven't noticed yet whether anyone has spotted that the Kylie Leuluai try should have been ruled out for Danny Buderus being offside at the PTB.

I do hope it's been discussed on the Bull's board even if it isn't been discussed on here.

_____________

For those asking for consistency with regards to players being sent off for borderline head high tackles, I think you're coming at it from the wrong angle.

It's the odd one that does get dismissed that is out of line with the norm.

You need to watch it again tvoc, as that was nothing like 2010. The major difference was the players were disciplined enough in the main to work towards what the refs had instructed before hand. When there was laziness and true holding down, he penalised it. He would not have done that in 2010.

If the Wigan v Saints game was anything to measure on, then yes we have moved away from the 2010 tactics this season.

I have nipped upstairs and looked at the Delaney sin-binning again and Langley's offload is in front and beyond Royston and the ball has gone before Delaney actually gets his hands on Royston. Delaney does not prevent a Bradford try and Sinfield picks up the ball off a single bounce from Langley's off-load however, Delaney is guilty of a professional foul and that is what Ganson bins and then gives Bradford a penalty for.

Re the non sin-binning. Raynor's was IMO (if not in Phil Clarke's opinion) a professional foul and as such he should have received a remaining 2 minute spell on the sidelines.

That said I like the reasoning that as a try was not prevented in this case (and bearing in mind the clock was ticking down) the penalty try was sufficient punishment.

Given it's going to be either: a penalty with a sin-binning or a penalty try with no sin-binning I know which one I'd have preferred at that point.

Had it just been the penalty would Sinfield have run it? I don't think he would but I didn't think he would in the CC Final at the same venue V the same opponents in 2003 either. A lesson already learned in 2007.

You can't "bear in mind the clock is ticking down". You cannot make refereeing decisions based on the score or time left. The rules have to stand up, have to be fair, in all circumstances.

The way AG is suggesting it (Raynor didn't prevent a try because it was given so he stays; Delaney did prevent a try because it wasn't given so he goes) leaves it down to what you deem to be a better advantage;

6 points now, play against 13 men.
0 points now, play against 12 men.

It's open to interpretation as to which is better, it depends on the circumstances as to which suits the ill-treated team the most, and a rule of the game just can't do that. It has always got to be in the best interested of the ill-treated team.

What if it happened like this;

In the 1st minute BJB fouled, Leeds are awarded a penalty try and go 6-0 up. Bradford play the remaining 79 minutes of the match with 13 men. Later, Royston fouled, Leeds are reduced to 12 men, Bradford score twice against a weakened team, match finished 6-12 to the Bulls. Raynor & Delaney both committed the same foul yet a different decision is given for both, which suits one team over the other.

Bradford may well have preferred a penalty try instead of Delaney going off.

I don't think so. As I said almost. I agree the players had bought into the quicker play the balls generally but considering the three games that had preceded it there was far more interference, hand on the ball, grabbing hands on the ground, going back on after losing collision, wrestle and putting the man to ground after the call of held than had been 'allowed' in the earlier games. Put James Child in charge of that game and there would have been another 37 penalties, yet I'm sure Child was only following instructions.

It appeared to me (Thaler was comfortably the best referee on day one, IMO) that Silverwood either took it upon himself to ease up after the previous game or had been instructed to by the powers that be.

Paul Cullen had spent the afternoon educating the viewers as to what the new interpretation was all about but he wasn't there for the final game. It would have been interesting if he had been.

And one more thing, is no-one going to insist on St Helens playing the ball correctly more than once in a set?

Can I say this again, it looks to me, and I suspect also Mr Ganson at the time hence his decision, that Delaney DID NOT prevent Bradford from scoring!!! Had Delaney not tackled Royston Bradford were never going to score, Sinfield picks up the lose ball from Langley and we drive the ball out from our line for six. Ganson bins Delaney for making an assumption (wrongly) that Royston might catch the ball and then tackling a Bradford player off the ball, just in case he did get it.

I also said Raynor committed a professional foul and should have been sin-binned.

I'm not dealing in a hypothetical situation just the one that occurred on 77 minutes yesterday.

Whoa there, I made no comment about the Delaney sin-binning being because he prevented a try.

The only definite advantage in terms of points on the scoreboard comes from the penalty try. All else, including any advantage which may or may not derive from a sin-binning is pure supposition.

To be honest I'm much more interested in why Buderus was allowed to cheat in the build up to the Leuluai score?

After the righteous misplaced indignation on here when Burrow had a try ruled out at Odsal for Webb doing the self same thing it's surprising nobody has the balanced view to comment when discussing the referee's performance. It was a decision that was refered to the video ref as well although Ganson didn't ask Silverwood specifically to look at the play the ball.... if he had perhaps we wouldn't even be discussing the non sin-binning.

So what you're saying is, Delaney got Binned for tackling a player who didn't have the ball, Whether or not that player was ever going to score a try is irrelevant, Delaney tackled a player who didn't have the ball and was binned. I agree.

How is that any different to Raynor?





Yes, you did. Fair point. As long as we're agreed, Raynor should've walked.



I'm not deliberately trying to discuss hypothetical situations. I'm just saying, if the rule is such that if a penalty try is given, the defending team retain all 13 men that will one day come and bite somebody in the backside, and THEN, (and only THEN, after the controversy and league points have been incorrectly awarded) they will change the rule.

Was there all this fuss when we beat them 30-0 in their own back yard?

I don't know the answer to this. However, is it possible to guarantee consistency? Is being reduced to 12 men for 10 mins at the start of the game a lesser punishment than having a man binned in the 70th minute when defences are tiring?

Just one question, haven't trawled through all the other posts. Does it mean BJB was awarded the hat trick? My understanding was that when a penalty try is awarded it is classified as being scored by "penalty try" and isn't actually awarded to an individual player.

I wondered that at the time. Looks like it's gone down as BJB though.

I suppose the whole point of a Penalty Try is that you're supposed to be 100% sure that the try would've been scored had the foul not been committed. That, by its very definition, would suggest you'd probably need to be 100% sure of who it was that was going to score it.

Nowhere in the laws of the game say that the referee has to be 100% sure that a try would have been scored. Strictly speaking, a referee could be 51% sure and could still justify awarding a penalty try.

I was under the impression they had to be dead certain it would've been a try but for the foul, and that's why they weren't given that much.

This is the law as written -

[iPenalty try (d) the Referee may award a penalty try if, =#FF0000in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred.[/i

The most important bit is in red and all that matters is that Silverwood (who takes over as ref as Ganson passes the decision to him in this case) thinks that BJB 'would' have scored.

Correct. Despite what Eddie and Stevo might say (although they were right yesterday to quote the above rule), there is no specified degree of certainty.

Thanks lads. I do wonder why they aren't given more then?!

At one point Greg McCallum stated that a decision where London Broncos were denied a score by Richie Blackmore (Leeds) holding back a player almost in the act of scoring was the correct call as there is/was no-way of telling if the player would have grounded the ball correctly.

It was an embarrassing decision by the referee and an even more embarrassing explanation by the otherwise very excellent Referees Controller of the day. In a stroke removing the possibility of awarding a penalty try for the then forseeable future.




Not in this sport, at least not as far as I am aware. Ben Jones-Bishop is credited with a hat-trick. (Incidentally he has also been given a 'try assist' by Opta for the kick through on that penalty try score.)

Leeds have scored a total of 2,537 tries during the SL Era. 7 of those were penalty tries awarded 1 each to Keith Senior, Matt Diskin, Andy Hay, Tonie Carroll, Karl Pratt, Mark Calderwood and now Ben Jones-Bishop.

I would say the most important bit should be "a try WOULD have been scored" you just confirmed the game was given to you, Yes Raynor should have got 10 mins but then again Walker should have 4 points to his name too!!!! If you moan at that ref performance then you will never be happy!!!!!

I'm not moaning I thought Leeds received some favourable decisions but how was Chev Walker denied a try?

No, I was right, the most important bit of that rule is the bit I highlighted. Because despite what you think, what I think or for that matter what anyone else thinks, only one persons opinion counts.

Can you define 'would' in this context and therefore explain why this is the most important bit of the rule? Of course, you 'could' be trolling?

TBF I thought his try should have stood. I was of the opinion that his left arm was tucked into his chest and didn't go near the ball to knock-on.

I also thought a penalty try was very generous too. IMO there was no guarantee he would have got to the ball before it went dead-in-goal. Should have been a Leeds pen on the line and a yellow card for Raynor.

Just my views from my seat in the stadium though. Absolutely cracking weekend, suffering badly with man-flu now though.