I remember this and you are correct, it was Greg McCallum making an of himself by not saying, I think the ref got in wrong! The problem we have had with successive ref controllers is that they do fear saying that occasionally, ref's get things wrong and defend ref's without question even when it makes a mockery of the laws.

Of course, I would however argue that the use of the 'would' within this law is very poor because it is by nature too vague. I think that the word 'would' should be replaced with 'in all probability' or even 'in all balance of probability' which is probably even better.

I was there too and was surprised to see Chev's try chalked off, but after reviewing it on Sky+ I think Silverwood got it right but it was just crap luck in some ways. The ball clearly touches his elbow/upper forearm, accidentally of course as he raised his arm to protect himself in collision, and as Leeds can't have knocked the ball on because it was a charge down, he had no choice but to deny him the try.

As for the ball going dead in goal then you are wrong again, it held up and was even gathered by a Bradford player, who was then tackled by BJB after he got up and chased. What it again mate, I think you will change your opinion. I think this is why Silverwood gave the penalty try, if the ball had looked like it was going dead then he would have given the penalty and Raynor would have been in the bin instead

i think the issue some people are missing with the penalty try is the reasons we have the rules, to stop players taking players chasing the kick out.

Raynor never challenged for the ball, he made the challenge on a player without the ball and stopped him scoring. If that decisions isnt a penalty try then Bradford have benefited from breaking the rules. If we dont the get that decision, then every player, on a break, chasing a loose ball will be taken out, any team which didnt would be foolish.

Thats why we have a penalty try.

Fair enough, I'll have a look tomorrow, have to get rid of 70% worth of MM off the sky+ box sharpish anyway, the missus nearly blew her top when she found out 'the Kardashians' only part recorded.

I agree that the ball clearly hits Chevs arm and therefore the correct decision was made. I still dont agree that BJB would Definately have scored, but in all probability he would. Its all symantics of course, but then Shad Royston probably would have scored (we will never know). What is a shame thought is that the video referee cant rule on forward passes, even when they are as clear as Leeds first try. Now I have looked at this time and time again. The pass is made a couple of feet before the line, and the player stops, the ball is caught a couple of feet after the line.........

I know it can be debated to death, but its in the fish and chip papers and the decisions will level themselves out over the course of a season, and no doubt there will be debates on here where decisions have gone against Leeds.

Unfortunately for Walker his left arm clearly contacted the ball and knocked it forward in to Jones-Bishop. As harsh a call as it may be it still constitutes a knock on.

What Silverwood was looking (and looking and looking and looking and looking and looking and looking) for on that decision and the one where Burrow was outjumped for a ball was beyond me. Although Ganson got a chance to catch his breath I suppose.

Just long enough to miss the fact Buderus was offside at the play the ball that ended with him creating the try for Leuluai.

Was Buderus making an effort to get onside before being played onside, which is, of course, the important factor in such a penalty?

And as you will no doubt already know that in itself has very little bearing (almost none in fact) on whether a pass is ruled forward or not.

On the other hand if you want a justifiable gripe there is one to be had on the Leuluai score.



IIRC he has to retire (not literally he's only 32 or so) behind a point in lateral line with the play the ball before being able to join in the attack on that play. If he doesn't (and he didn't) then he must remain out of that play and wait for the next one before rejoining the attack.

Everyone will no doubt recall the final Leeds 'try' of the 2010 season being wiped out on such a call and incredibly that involved the same two Leeds players in Buderus and Leuluai.

For all Sky's wizardry (and it was only on seeing it after the match that I noticed it) and 'expert' analysis they missed sparking a major controversy on that one. They'll be absolutely gutted.

Well of course the law does not use the word definitely either, which is probably a stronger word than would, but in all balance of probability, BJB would have scored and hence I think the wording of the law should be changed to say just that.

However, I disagree that Royston would have scored because irrespective of Delaney's challenge, which he was rightly binned for, the off-load from Langley was too far in front and beyond Royston. Watch this again and Royston was simply not in a position to take that ball and in actual fact Delaney's tackle comes after and almost at the same time Sinfield catches the ball on the first bounce. Ganson did not refer this upstairs because he did not have to mate, Delaney took Royston our purely on speculative assumption he might catch the ball but when you watch it, he was not near enough.

As for forward passes then sending them to the video would be wrong (and indeed that is why they don't), I am not saying the pass in question did not have a hint of forward, just that the laws are correct in not letting them be reviewed by the video for too many reason to list.

I'd need to see more angles on the Delaney challenge to see if it was worthy of a sin-binning. Very unsatisfactory trying to make a call on what was shown by Sky of the incident. If anything I assumed he must have made contact before the ball was released towards Royston. It was either that or Ganson seeing fairies at the bottom of a maul. Understandably I was 50/50 on which was most likely.

Firstly, I need to look at this again because I am unsure of the incident from memory but the law as you have stated above is incorrect.

When you look at the 'Out of Play' law it looks quite clear cut...

[i“Out of Play” as opposed to “off side” 3. Players who are out of play at a play-the-ball (Section 11), a scrum (Section 12), a kick off or drop-out (Section

a penalty kick (Section 13) or a free kick (Section 13) are not put “on side” in the manner described in para 3 above. (Seeappropriate Sections).[/i

...but when you view the appropraite section of the law (as told) on the play the ball, then you see this

[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. =#FF0000A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.[/i

So tvoc that is the question for debate on Buderus in this try? The Burrow/Web incident, he clearly didn't, so it was pulled back, but what about this one? I will have to go look now...

The actual laws of the game are for geeks (I imagine they'll confidently state you have to play the ball with your foot - doesn't seem to apply to any team out there - most notably on Saturday St Helens) I'm only concerned with the current interpretation of them.

Buderus is offside on that play IMO and while the distance he is offside is less than the distance Webb was offside at Odsal and Buderus again was offside in the final game of last season at Headingley he was still in front of the play the ball. He makes no attempt to get back behind the line of the play the ball, he remains inside 10 metres as he supports the Burrow run from dummy half to be on hand to take the pass.

If that is materially different to the two previous examples noted I really don't see how.

As a Leeds fan I would not be happy if that try had been allowed to stand against my team (especially as it was referred by Ganson to the video ref, although not to look at that specific aspect) and that is the acid test I apply in addition to my understanding of the current interpretation of the laws.

Why the referees don't simply instruct the video official to look at the validity of the try, starting from the play the ball in question I don't understand. Perhaps then we can get the play the ball cleaned up and a proper contest between attack and defence, not one that is weighted one way or the other.

For the same reason, Elima should also have been whistled for offside before he even picked up the knock on from Whitehead.
I wonder if Peter Hood has asked for the 2 points back yet?

I may be missing your point but was he offside before he touched the loose ball? Accidentally perhaps but not intentionally so no need to whistle until he effects the play from an offside position.



If he hasn't he goes down in my estimation.

Elima was standing behind our backline when the ball was played back by us. He was still ambling back from an earlier play. Therefore, never got back on side.

I assume we are talking about the incident that enabled Sinfield to kick his first two points of the season with the final play of the half.

Elima tackled Watkins on the first hit up from a scrum. Took up position at marker (although for me he didn't get fully into the correct shape) but wasn't pinged by Ganson so I'm assuming he was deemed to be onside at the resulting play the ball.

Using that interpretation he was OK until he picked up the ball after the ricochet off another Bradford player.

Not Trolling but with the refs we have then their opinions will all be different depending on who scored IMO , some would favour the Giants, some Leeds, some Wigan or Bradford ect. The video ref should make the call not sure if it was the video ref who gave the pt or not?

Who do you think made the 'Penalty Try' call on Sunday if it wasn't the video ref?

The Downing Street cat.

Was Ganson stopping the clock, drawing the square in the air, the many video replays, and then the big screen then finally displaying 'Penalty TRY' not enough of a clue as to who made the decision?

So it was the cat then.

I knew it, I bloody knew it.

Anyone remember the incident where Chev Walker was ruled by Ganson to have lost the ball over the line?

Apparently Stuart Cummings has made a personal apology to Mick Potter for that incident not being referred to the video ref, as he believes he would have ruled the ball was stolen by a Leeds player and subsequently touched down by Gareth Raynor for a try.

Expect The Hooded Claw to be asking for the two points back in 10,9,8,7....

Indeed, another rather fortuitous call that Leeds received from the match official.

Ganson is fast becoming a Leeds legend!

I love the little fat f*****r!