I thought the Addy 'knock on' was probably 50/50 whether it went forwards or backwards it is pretty hard to tell on the replay. Is it just me that is bloody confused about when a tackler comes in to make a tackle and his hand hits the ball? I've seen it given both ways though generally it seems to go against the defender. It's not a rule I particularly like and I think good defence should be rewarded rather than penalised.

The Lulia PTB knock on was another decision that we've seen go both ways and once they scored off that set it really was all over as a contest.
Generally I thought Silverwood got most of the decisions spot on but perhaps a couple of the 50/50's just didn't seem to go our way. For us to beat the top teams I think we probably need to be on the other end of that.

Thought silverwood had a decent game overall.

Considering the amount of mistakes our players made then surely silverwood can get away with making a couple of small ones. I'm grateful for him after watching Roby, hicks and child!

Wasn't It Purtell who picked the ball up and scored? Reason Silverwood couldn't go to the screen is because he waved back to 6 so Leeds had a free play then we intercepted and scored. Presume once he's waved back to 6 he can't go to the screen. Be very unfair on Leeds to say they had a free play, then say they didn't and award Bradford a try after Leeds threw the ball about thinking they had a free play.

Silverwood had a decent enough game, although we desperately need to 2 referees. As tigertot said, our powderpuff defence is what we should complain about.

Although one decision wound me up last night (it happens with all refs though) Bradford ware awarded a pen for Leeds interference mid way through second half, score was 30-16. From the first two tackle Bradford won the collision yet he Leeds players would not let the player up and had the most blatant interference of the night. Much worse than what he penalised the set before. Then we knocked on then Silverwood penalises us for the softest of penalties for interference which I still can't work out. It's these inconsistencies that annoy fans. We desperately need 2 refs for the rucks.

Not a fan of the free play boll@cks.

It was a knock-on...

Stupid ruling anyway - at the end of the day whether going for the man or the ball if you knock on you knock simple !!!

Ref this ref that doesnt really matter to be honest - we would not of Won that game last night, Whether Purtells try was given or if in fact JJB knocked the ball from Lulias hands,

We were just not good enough on the night as we havent been for the last 3 games - our defence has had more holes than a sieve !!

I have watched it carefully and it seems clear to me it wasn't. But whether it was, or wasn't my issue is why did the ref not allow the try to be scored and ask the VR to just check?

Anyone who claims it was a clear knock on is, with respect, either trolling, defective eyesight, or doesn't understand the phrase.

I would agree that overall we certainly didn't deserve to win the game, we were in many ways taught a lesson. I disagree that we couldn't have won the game. If we had got 3 tries on the bounce and got to 22-30, anything could have happened, and I think any watcher of SL has to agree with that, if we had got back to 22-30 with plenty of time to go, then you simply can't say we wouldn't have won.

I've watched a few times and it's a definite knock-on. Even if you ignore that and it did go backwards the fact is Silverwood waved back to 6 so the Leeds players gambled as they knew whatever happened they'd get the ball back. You couldn't go to the video ref after telling the leeds players they had a free play, so your point is void either way .


I'll also add your clutching at straws with this, as always it seems every single Rhinos victory recorded is due to the referee, and if one call had gone the other way the other team of course could or should have won it.

LOL - TBH even if we got on the front foot and had them on the ropes we still would of ran out of steam, a fair few teams at the moment a class above the rest and unfortunately Leeds are one of them,

If we could of avoided the first 12 points then maybe we may of had a chance, but judging by how we played at Wire i wasnt expecting anything more than a comfortable win for Leeds,

BUT not overlly bothered with the last 3 results as long as i said we can beat the teams lower than us we will have a good shot at the play-offs and hopefull can build up a good run of form going into them

This thread is a little embarrassing. On the whole the referee performance was okay, he certainly made less mistakes than the Bradford players. Poor defense lost us this game, not the referee.

Maybe you could have a look at this, then.

There are 4 screen shots. The main picture is a composite of the moment Addy's hand hits the ball on the left half of the image (A) and the moment the ball hits the ground, on the right side of the image (C).

It's very easy to see that the images line up, as there are lines and markings on the pitch.

You can in particular see that the ball is not forward of Addy's right foot.



I have also overlaid smaller images taken from the side view, at the same moments.

B shows that the ball is in fact not level with Addy's foot, but forward of Addy. This gives about another 2 or 3 feet of "room". It means the ball at image "A" is in fact 2 or 3 feet nearer the camera than Addy's right foot.

I would be interested to see any physical evidence you can show to support your conviction that it WAS forward.


At least I'm confident that you're not being serious there. Lulia was away by a mile and you know it.


Mate, I am doing no such thing whatsoever. I am simply discussing one single bad decision by the ref, and that was not to go to the VR for this call. There is no excuse for it. It should be possible to sensibly discuss physical evidence of one incident without people getting on their high horses about wider points and hyperbolic claims. Nobody is saying Leeds weren't the better side on the day nor that the Bulls "would have won" nor that their victory is "due to the ref". It is only stating the obvious to say that if the try had been scored, then from then it would have been a different game. Eight points isn't much in SL 2013.

Unfortunately it's your post that's embarrassing. I'd agree with your comment about the ref's general performance, and the mistakes, and the defence. Nobody says the referee lost us the game. Why refute a claim nobody has made?

Fair enough, from what I saw it looked forward, without having the time or inclination to go look into it as much as you have.

I'm confused what you mean by I know Lulia was away by a mile though? I agree Lulia would have scored, I've never said he wouldn't. My point was the ref called it a knock-on therefore giving leeds a free play, meaning they perhaps wouldn't have made the pass that Lulia intercepted if they hadn't been awarded a free play.

Wether Silverwood got the correct call becomes irrelevant as they can't go to the video ref after awarding leeds a free play when the players will obviously take a more risky approach with the knowledge whatever happens they get the ball back. To suddenly go to the video ref after telling the Leeds players this would be ridiculous. It's not their fault Silverwood got the call correct or not, in the context of what happened and the call silverwood made you could not suddenly reverse that knowing the implications.

Addy knocked on. Simple as. No need to check it.

Cheers.


Good point, and an example of unforeseen consequences. If Ablett (?) did indeed only throw a pass that he wouldn't have thrown if he was not sure it was a free play, then I would agree with you. I don't think on balance that was the case, as the ref's call came as he was already shaping to pass, but I can't say it wasn't, just that it didn't look that way.


Probably so. That's totally unsatisfactory position that this ridiculous and unnecessary new rule puts us in.

So we can agree, whilst the knock down may not have gone forward but due to the rules of the game, (which I amn't endorsing or agreeing with by the way), Silverwood couldn't have gone to the video ref after making the call he did?

It would be like saying to a defending team the opposition have knocked on, and the defence stops and they let a player run through and score making no attempt to tackle him, then suddenly the ref changing his mind and going to the video ref realising it wasn't a knock-on in the first place. Once a decision of that nature has been made you can't ignore it after.

Have I been living in a box? What is a "free play"?

Careful....

Erm yes... you have.

You surely must have seen teams 'chance their arm' with a free play after a knock on? Basically means that a team can try a risky play after the opposition have knocked on and if they don't score/gain advantage/ or if they knock on or lose possession then play is brought back to the original knock on.

While I am sure it was a knock on & the ref got it spot on I do wonder what would have happened if he had gone to the screen. As Purtell goes down the wing Blythe (IIRC) is in (distant) support; McGuire grabs him from behind by the collar & hauls him to the ground. Definitely a yellow card. That's twice Danny.

I personally am not a fan of the 'free play' option... and it doesn't seem many fans are. To me it all looks a bit rushed and panicky when a team gets a free play!

The majority I have seen seem to go along the lines of well we will get it back anyways so lets boot it down field and all rush for it and hope we get it if not scrum down... which can be exciting but when its on Sky I think to most it will like a bit silly! Just IMO... I can see what the RFL were trying to do with it though...

As for the Addy incident... I don't think its a knock on but we shot ourselves in the foot in the first half so it would probably have been too much to come back! In all its not the worst call a ref has made against any team

I quite like the free play, mainly because it confuses the hell out of the oldies who are struggling to keep up with the rules. Quite funny listening to them going berserk at the 'stupid player'..

Whether it was right or not you got a try on the back of McGuire and JP for that matter getting penalised when it was clear McGuires leg was being clamped by your player and he was trying to pull it out and when JP had his hand clamped by a Bulls player only to be penalised again. Both resulted in tries to you.
So all in all it leveled out.
I also thought Bailey had a try disallowed when it looked to me the ball was on the line.

That is only because you haven't looked at my conclusive proof that it wasn't




I don't know what is the matter with the current McGuire, he seems to have turned into something of a nasty piece of work and unfortunately that would just be par for the course for him nowadays.

I don't think there is such a thing written into the laws of the game it's more a new interpretation of the same old rule than anything new. I think the name, 'Free Play', is just something Stevo came up with....