I'd be surprised to see Patton here next year. Dunning was hardly quick to protect him after his gouging charge. Shame has the talent is there, but just looks like he doesn't have the temperament to be a regular HB anywhere.

Other than the massive defence effort, the most pleasing aspect of the game was watching the boy Lawford's performance. Yes, he dropped a couple of catches under pressure, but he really looked comfortable slipping into the half back role. Sam Hallas didn't do too bad either, and Kear had his usual solid game at full back. But difficult to nominate a player of the match for me, as there were a few good performances. On the Patton issue - we'll now see if the catalyst of our performance problems has now departed (which i suspect could be the case)

I'm not sure where all this "unsettling influence" comes from. He has been our main attacking threat this season and his goalkicking has been ghe best in the league. I agree the gouging incident was bad but other players have had brain farts in their careers. He was helping young Lawford all game last week which was good to see so let's give the bloke a chance.

Well well well. Watch it last night on Premier Sports. Great effort, especially in the 2nd half. Agree the big thug Pauli Pauli should have been sent to put the kettle on for that cheap shot.
Great win!

Was good to see some genuine effort and will to win. That got us the win. If we see that kind of effort each week then you can't complain whatever the result.

As for Patton I think we're better off without him, there are a lot of rumours going around about his attitude and you do wonder if there's no smoke without fire.

What was pleasing was when York had repeated sets of six midway through the second half and the commentators saying that a try would result in the next few seconds. It was a superb effort.

We should also have been awarded a try after about 73 when the ref claimed the ball had been held-up. Looked fine to me.

That was a try any day of the week.

For one thing, once Ant Walker slides in with the ball under him, there's no way anyone is getting their hands and feet underneath the ball!

Towards the end of that when we were keeping York at bay, I thought to myself that I'd be sad to see us lose but be incredible heartened by the sheer effort. The icing on the cake was to see us hold on for the win. That's the most hardworking and gutsy performance I've seen us have in quite a while and it's a bit of a tonic.

Just remember “it’s not the same if you’re not at the game…..!”

Genuine question for anyone on here who's up to speed with the ever changing rules of RL (impartiality please):

Should York's first try have stood?

Hingano plays the ball as near as dammit on the Bradford line and dummy half Jubb dives (at least partially) through Hingano's legs to score. Surely Jubb could be said to use Ata's body as a shield to obstruct the try line defence?

All answers welcome (bar CD's)!

Sorry, first things second, congrats on the massive win last night.

Pretty sure you can't dive through the middle of the ruck but I'm not 100% sure.

No and he didn’t play the ball correctly either. But we didn’t play the ball correctly for Lawford’s try so won’t be complaining.

There was a forward pass in the build up to their try before half time and we had a perfectly good try chalked off too. Plus Pauli Pauli should have been a straight red. Right now though it doesn’t matter.

Neither PTB would have passed muster back in the day but in this day and age as long as the tackled player has previously got back onto two feet, the "ball playing" foot doesn't seem to need to touch the ball. If anything, Hingano's foot might have touched it - just!

Regarding the "forward" pass, this blasted momentum rule seems to have really muddied the waters. Who the heck knows anymore? Back on the 1st of April (of all days), Leigh nilled Dewsbury by 44 with the visitors having a sole score chalked off for a forward pass. Bongser was sitting next to Charlie Caroli, virtually square on to the pass, and we both thought that the try should have stood - and a good one it would have been too.

Only seen the highlights and therefore can't comment on Walker's disallowed effort or on Pauli x2.

Onward to 'Haven at home.

Forward passes are always a problem for refs to rule on as angles can be very deceptive and the ref may be looking at them from the front or rear so is relying on the touch judge who may also be unsighted.

So long as the ball comes out of the hands sideways or backwards it doesn't matter if the player catching it is in front of the passer - that's basically how I see it. There used to be a well known try that illustrates this perfectly (well it does for old fogeys that remember it) - Joe Lydon scoring for GB against the Kiwis in 1985. It's one of the all time classics. Hanley makes a break down the touchline, throws a hopeful ball inside and Lydon catches it in front of where Hanley passed.

Rugby Union appears to remain extremely generous about forward passes even at international level. Every time I watch a union game I see tries scored that would be chalked off in League. Ironically for a sport clogged in rules, their mentality is that if its there or there abouts, let the game flow.

The passing movement that led to the famous Gareth Edwards try for the Barbarians vs the All Blacks in 1973 included a pass that went about 3m forward but nobody mentions it. Fair enough. RL fans in particular will always find fault no matter what.

Going back some (all too many) years also, Bongser was at his college halls of residence and watching a Five Nations (as it was then) game involving Scotland (probably vs England) and the Scots captain Gavin Hastings loosed (literally) a pass from within the 22m line that was caught well beyond it. The resulting try was shown several times with praise from Nigel Starmer-Smith - never a word against the officiating. Think it's drummed into these RU silver spooners from an early age that, should they dare to do that, Nanny will come round and spank them AND NOT IN A NICE WAY!

Pauli Pauli 1 match ban. It doesn't affect us and I known disciplinary is very hard to get consistency, but considering most neutrals were saying it was a straight red, how they've come up with a 1 game ban beggars belief.

Dont get used to it you chumps are coming back down to earth this week when you loose at home to white haven.

Another 2 points this weekend and are top 3 spot is almost secure. How the tables av turned and the mighty av fallen you should of spent money on players instead of foam fingers

TBH I'm happy with that as I would have been if he'd had a red and it was taken as sending off sufficient. Can't wait to see Ford's comments on it.

The Aaron Murphy ban seems harsh mind.

The troll (and I say that loosely because it's one of the most feeble I've come across) is now banned.

Trust me, you were born to do it!

Good man PP although that will have only fed his anti bradford agenda.

‘They dint sign mi and they car the tel da banta innit’

Hope he doesn’t take it out in his sister.

If by some miracle we put in a similar heroic performance to York away and manage to get one over on fax please can we unban him for 24/7 to get his views ha

If Pumper promises an "unban" for even a couple of days, Dunning should nail the announcement to the shed wall - Bradford by a country mile:

"Us wam robed"

"Reff wam bi-d"

"Cheetin theefs"

It would be glorious and compulsive reading for two or three days - and then send him to Coventry again.