Didnt even show the last dissallowed try from Friday, and yet went on and on...again... about the Burow Webb no try. In my opinion the last was more debatable due to the 'cant judge a forward pass rule' and yet can judge a pass that goes forward as a knock on?

Surely a mistake from our friends at Sky?

It wasn't a pass it was a knock on by Jones-Buchanan.

There was no controversy to discus on either decision just the usual need to educate RL fans oblivious to the laws of the game. I never realised RL was this complicated.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder – or knock-on in this case.

Some may say that JJB knocked on, others that it was a flick pass.

Personally I think it was a blatant knock-on but the point I’m trying to make is that it was open to interpretation and that it was the interpretation of our little French friend that ruled out the try.

So even with video evidence the decision can be open to interpretation and not as simple as black and white.

Is it a knock on if JJB made a play at it with his hand ? surely only could have been judged forward pass which only ref can give not vid ref.

as far as I know, you need to have it controlled to be passing it, or at least looking to pass it.

My wife still swears it went backwards. She's wrong. I could see it went forward from the terrace. Whether there is such a thing as momentum rule for knock on is another matter

Lots of interesting angles on it, but I think the right decision was made in the end.

It's a knock unless Jones-Buchanan demonstrably intended to pass the ball in that instance.

I don't think there's been a referee over the last forty plus years that would have judged that incident any differently given the opportunity to review the footage (including French ones) and that makes it simple for me to understand and accept. Regardless of the lettering of any of the laws it's the referees interpretation that counts and in this instance it was clear and consistent.

ah right interesting.. that would make sense (the control part), on another day it may have been given. would have liked to have seen carney and cullens veiw on it last night.

I think it would have been given if the video ref wasn't there. Not sure about the web one. Smith did seem to think that Webb was offside, and seemed to just be checking

For all the discussion on the two disallowed Leeds tries (which were both the correct decision), the worst decision IMO was not picking up the obstruction on JJB before the kick for Bradford's winning try. This is despite Smith asking for it to be checked and it being pretty clear that Newton took him out.

He also asked for Jones-Buchanan's knock on to be checked so he appeared to be aware of that also.



There is no such thing as momentum where knock ons are concerned. As it is refereed it's almost impossible to be heading towards your opponent's line, touch the ball with your hand and knock the ball backwards in relation to the ground and this is what counts here. Jones-Buchanan ending in front of the ball is irrelevant to the knock on call.

My issue with the Webb "try" is that while technically correct, this is the first time I've seen it given. As mentioned on Boots & All last night, Hanley and Edwards must have scored dozens of tries between them doing the same thing.

Also, if Webb was judged offside shouldn't teams be penalised every time teams put in a long kick?

Yes agreed. it would have def been given if not on tv which is frustrating for all fans

The only comment I've found interesting about this came from Robbie Paul on the Superleague Show where he plainly states that the rule is new this season. If he's right (And I've currently no reason to doubt him) then all this talk about Ellery and past "offences" is pointless.

As has been mentioned by someone else earlier, the only contentious decision I felt was the second Bradford try not being chalked off for obstruction on JJB.

If Mick Withers (who assured me he never touched the ball) was adjudged to have knocked on (even though no-one but the vidref saw any change in the trajectory of the ball) in the GF against Stains a few years ago when a Pryce try was disallowed (which cost us the match), then this incident (where you can definitely see the ball changes trajectory forward off JJB's hand and definitely see he made no attempt to execute a flick pass) HAS to be a knock-on.

I agree it was contentious - although far from clear-cut. Also contentious was the Leeds try from a significantly-forward pass.

In both cases, its a case of: it happens - live with it, I suggest.

Having not seen the Superleague Show I can't comment on that but the way Cullen was talking on Boots & All suggested this wasn't the case. It may be that they have made a point of picking it up this season but thats a different matter.

Like I said earlier I can't see why the VR didn't pick up on the obstruction on JJB

Not again.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=404388&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0Have a read of this from last week on here.[/url

If you can add any instances of tries resulting where attacking players have been offside at the preceding play the ball then please, please do so. Nobody could last week. Not once.

On the other hand there were two tries (now three with Burrow) ruled out for this correct decision.

Instance of a try following a player being offside at the preceeding play the ball - Rhinos first try against Salford. Sinfield in front of the play the ball then delivers the final pass to JJB.
These instances happen regulalry and the refs can't police it without video help. They have made a further rod for their own back by this deciision and the silence from Cummings that has followed.

Good call - just watched the higlights on sl website and you're right.

The thing is the ball stays alive and goes across field and back again that the ref has no chance of spotting that. But you're right, by what the 'law enforcers' have been saying he should have been unable to play any part in that play until the next tackle..

[size=75... not that it helped us tho...[/size

Nice to see Paul "the brain" Cullens views on Ben Thaler. "why should we ave im in the lower leagues" when questioned on wether Thaler should be demoted to "learn the rules"

Sinfield having originally been stood in front of the play the ball got back behind the point of the ptb as the ball shipped left and was back onside to send Jones-Buchanan over.

What was wrong with that?

...yeh you're right, he does.

You're wrong. It was different to the Bradford incident.

If you are offside at the ptb then you are offside. There is no getting back onside once the ball is in play

yes there is.