Im not saying it shouldnt of been a straight red, just the fact it appears ganson used the VR to make a correct decision boggles me as wasnt sure it could be used for this.........

But the fact that you have Wigan fans coming on here and saying it was a deliberate assault to his head is ludacris !!

Not "fans", just me i think...

What an absolute Baboon, think you need to change your profile picture as a gorilla doesnt suit !!!

i like to show my more feminine side...

Havent you got some pies to go and eat or something ?

Just a bully beef sandwich..

Are they breeding on here or what??

If Barlow had been sent off in the last round, how many people would be moaning about Raynor's red card? Consistancy is key but there never seems to be a great deal from the referees collectively.

Ganson's been around too long for players not to know he's strict and will get the cards out if he can.

Well he's before the Beak this week www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/532 ... 0COMMITTEE

Well he's before the Beak this week www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/532 ... 0COMMITTEE

No. He clearly attempted to dislodge the ball. Obviously accidents will happen in a contact sport. Bulls don't seem to have any dirty cheating players who elbow in the face, have sly kicks after tackles etc., which is a credit to the club and the players. I feel sorry for Raynor as he clearly was disturbed by the whole matter even before being sent off. Hopefully he won't get a harsh penalty other than the sending off (hopefully less than Sam Chumpkins punishment for running across the field and punching another player from behind anyway).

Wow on TV Tomkins eyes look cloudy :/

If he was clearly aiming for the ball carrying arm, he would have been somewhere near the ball carrying arm and not the side of Tomkins jaw.



Although Raynor is not a nasty player, this was dangerous and reckless play which saw one player strike an opponent in the face with a clenched fist when the ball carrier had no chance of even seeing it coming let alone defend himself.

A point which I don't really think has been made yet on here (although it has [url=http://bradfordbulls.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/gareth-raynor-and-the-steve-ganson-factor/here[/url), which is worth considering. The VR's ability to watch the incident in slow-motion over and over again did it no justice whatsoever. It should have just been watched at full speed and action taken from there. It just looks worse in slo-mo, IMO.

I have made that point on here. At full speed no-one gave a t0$$. It wasn't til they realised that Tomkins was lying there for longer than usual that people were interested and the Wigan fans didn't start howling for the re-introduction of the death penalty until about the third replay.

Ah, sorry mate, must have missed it. But yeah, you're spot on.

But once again its a lack of consistency, we don't have VR at all games, so in most games he would not have been off.

I am still not convinced if the VR can be used to send someone off or not? What can the ref ask the VR for? Can someone clarify?

"VR...what can we screw Bradford for off that incident?"

Taken from the RFL Operational Rules. It is the clause after "No pass from a Leeds player shall be deemed forward unless it clearly ends up behind the opposing defensive line" and just before the Salary cap exemption for clubs in the development area of North Cheshire.

Does it become before or after the "No tackle from any player whose surname starts with O'Lough... will be ever deemed high." rule?

Can't remember mate - there are too many players listed in that Clause. I only remember the final bit "...except that no Bradford Player shall be permitted to take advantage of this exemption", and the next clause which stated "No decision by the video referee shall ever be given in favour of Bradford" and then "the video referee shall not be permitted to advise the referee about matters which take place in the course of general play, except that he may advise in respect of anything that might result in a decision against Bradford".

I cannot believe anyone is actually suggesting not making use of the VR in slowmo. Are you suggesting the same for tries, ball steals, knock-ons & offsides? Or jsut when it is to your benefit? Just because it was difficult or impossible to judge on the original TV viewing (a view Ganson never had BTW) doesn't mean justice shouldn't be done. Ganson had already called it before the replays from his position on the pitch & IMO would have walked him anyway. Were you on the Rodney King trial?

BUT is he actually allowed to go to the VR to ask for clarification ??

Didnt he do that at cardiff in 2007 to award leeds that last minute penalty (obviously not for a high tackle) and he was incorrect for doing so ??

I though you could only use th VR for Tries and also checking how to restart the game ??

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It's a genuine question. Have you ever seen a tackle in general play that has been referred to the video ref? Would this one have been had it not been in the process of scoring a try? So if the VR is now used (rightly maybe?) to judge the severity of a tackle, will it be used so in every game from now on?

The problem is this is the first time the VR has been asked about the severity of a high tackle - that we are aware of. To avoid accusations of bias, every ref who has access to the VR should now ask for slow-mo replay to establish the amount and severity of head contact in a high shot. If this is done then Bradford were just unlucky to be the first to fall foul of the new operational rules of the VR. If not then Silverwood has gone beyond his operational mandate just to screw us again

And he gets another chance to screw us over again on the field this sunday

I think that is a very fair point apart from the last sentence which just lowers it to the level of other paranoia. I would be amazed if that is the first time a VR has ever been asked to comment on the content of a possible illegal tackle, I never thought about it at the time but it is a very fair question which needs answering. As Debaser says, maybe it was only because it was a try scoring opportunity. If that is the case I think that would be daft.