I remember that. It wasn't much of a high bomb either, more of a lacklustre punt that my Mum could've caught.

Gale's had a few off field distractions lately, we'd do well to remember that. However it is time he put together some consistent good form as we need better game management from the halfbacks. If Gaskell is confirmed we should get another player with a decent long kicking game. I agree that Addy, in attack at least, as been the more impressive halfback recently but he's not [iyet[/i got the authority or experience to steer us around the park for 80mins. Hopefully we'll hear that he's going to stay at the Bulls, he's got a future here if he wants it.

Interesting re. Gaskell - No-one has confirmed at the club, yet in last weeks League Weekly (may have wrong paper, but was in the press) there was an interview with Foster, where he said the signing was great for the club, and how he will have petrol contributions coming from Gaskell as they live on the same street.

Everyone seems to now think the deal is done, but we know how the club likes to release it's positive press (usually after a disappointing on-field display).

You're right, he did play well against Hull and I understand there's been issues in his life.

However, he needs a big pre-season where he gets properly fit. He's missed the start of both seasons and doesn't look in good enough condition. He takes the ball walking or standing far too often.

Looking at it in isolation, that's fairly accurate, though I thought Scruton had some answers. But looking at a slightly bigger picture, the reason they had the chance to dominate was Bentham. It was a sequence of baffling calls that kept us away from possession for waht seemed like 15 minutes - and even then we only were broken once, at the end. Calling a kick into the back of someone's head from 1 meter, as he turned to try to evade it, was a harsh call, but giving 6 more tackles "played at" for the attempted grubber from point blank range was ludicrous - the ball hit the foot.

Here's a merge of 3 images of the ridiculously forward pass:

1. - ball about to leave the hand. Note: ball is almost directly underneath passer's chin
2. ball thrown forward into the gap behind tacklers. Note: action of hand is in a forward motion, arm/hand going well forward of body, ball well forward of passer's head.
3. first contact with receiver's hand - attacker already through our defensive line. That's why it's impossible to defend.



It isn't of course quite as forward as it looks from the stills, as momentum does come into play, but unless there is a huge hole in Langley, the ball had to come from behind that position, and all the officials missing it, despite a huge roar from the crowd who all saw it instantly, clearly, from every part of the ground, is just an inexplicable travesty

I'd be more worried about Cats having 3 number 23s palying for them.

I dont know if this has been mentioned already but has anybody watched a reply of the tries, and if so for Catalans 1st did Elliott Kear actually ground the ball first ??

You can't see on the replay; it looked as if he certainly should have, but from his reaction, I am assuming he knew he didn't.

I watched it on Super League full time last night and couldn't help think that if there was a video ref, the try wold not have been given. I actually thought he grounded it twice.

Saying that, he was right in front of the touch judge, so I would have expected him to make the correct call.

Why on earth would you think that?

What I expect, and what actually happens are totally different things.



I watch a lot of NRL and the video ref is not just available, but used in every single game. Was I right in reading that the RFL made a substantial profit last year, it would be a massive lift to have a video ref at each game!

Out of all the things in our game that desperately need investment you would spend it on a video ref? It adds nothing to our game in terms of stopping whinging, those that whinge merely accuse vidoe ref's of incompetency. When we have sorted junior development, the quality of coaching below SL level, the state of grounds, a sustainable salary cap sufficient to retain our brightest talent, perhaps then it might be a priority. Refereeing standards are as high, if not higher, than they have ever been, the game has moved on immeasurably. TV replays give the opportunity to examine situations that were never able to be scrutinised previously.

:1ylfwtg6
I think that's right, to be fair. Particularly if we're speaking about the best of the current referees - and as for the apprentices hopefully theyn will be so in the future.

Referees have always got it wrong from time to time[except, of course it was [i:1ylfwtg6right[/i and always will be. All that really matters is the players on the field accept the decision, right or wrong, we of course can please ourselves....For what it's worth, I'd get rid of the video as a waste of money; let the ref point his finger or wave it away and let's get on with the game.

Given what is now at stake (prize money, promotion relegation etc.), the cost of a refereeing error may have a larger impact on a team than in previous years. I also think the teams are a little closer matched than 10 years ago. If a referee made a mistake a few years ago, the mistake would not have had an effect on the result and people would be less bothered.

There are many improvements that could be made that wouldn't cost the earth, for example, having 2 referees like they do in the NRL. I was against this when I first saw it in action, but it works really well, and you can hear the refs communicating during the game.

The video ref at each game may be a little more expensive, but it was just a thought. In my opinion, a video referee should never make a blatant mistake. I know this has been witnessed, but this is inexcusable and there is little defence for the adjudicator.

I agree that TV now makes referees more accountable, but this should be a reason for them to improve. Instead, there is a blanket rule, stating that you cannot criticize or moan about a referees performance.

I do feel that there is too much for responsibility for 1 referee. Numerous times this year I have seen the offside rule ignored, and the teams at the top, now seem to be smart and defences start running as soon as the attacker gains his feet, not when the ball is played. The referee does not pay much attention as he's too busy looking at the correct PTB. This has a big effect on how a team performs.

As for the grass root argument, the RFL do need to do better, but we should not have to pick 1 idea a year. All items you have described should be given attention. I do feel that if we had a substantial sponsor for the past 2 years, you may have seen more clubs spending to the cap, but as it stands, the RFL still manage to make a substantial profit without a sponsor for their competition. This doesn't add up, are the RFL just interested in making cash, instead of improving certain areas of the game?

I don't think we have either the money or enough quality refs to replicate the Australian idea of 2 refs on the field; however I think it is stating the bleedin' obvious that if, as on Sunday, a ref never calls a team (Catalans) offside throughout the entire 80 minutes, that he is basically choosing to ignore shall we say a number of offsides.

He even chose to ignore a 20m restart being taken when a Catalan player was still offside - yet bizarrely pulled us up on one where I'm certain the last man - Scruton - had got back.

I do not think that the referee, if asked, would honestly reply that yes, he genuinely felt Catalans mainatined the 10 for every tackle, for the full 80. And as no team ever did that, he would be lying if he did. But why did he never pull them for offside? Keeping his eye on other things? Choosing not to look? I have no idea, but it really infuriated the crowd, and it wasn't the only thing that did. Many's the time that most of their team blatantly lined up ahead of Bentham but he ignored it. (Lest I am accused of bias - I'm not - he didn't pull us either, and I think the pen count ended up quite even)

Anyhoo, a second on-field referee clearly at least works for policing the 10 in Australia, if nothing else, and so it would be worth it just for that, to me. Though I think we need clarification of when the defensive line can move since on many occasions, they set off early and by the time the foot was playing the ball, several had 5 metres start.

I have to say that baffled me. All of our players were behind the 20m line for sure.

The worst decision for me had to be the 'six to go' call when a Catalan grubber kick hit one of our players feet from 20cm away. How you can class that as six to go is beyond me.

Well then why dont the TJ's speak to the ref, that should be their job to police the defensive line, they hardly call forward passes the refs spots most of them.

And they arent very confident at saying a players has gone into touch, seen it plenty of time the ref ask them and they have shrugged as they dont know, ITS THEIR ONLY REAL JOB and they are only certain if the player is nearly in the stands.

We should have VR at every game or at no game, some situations, tries will be given when they arent, and ruled out when they are, we all want consistency and this is the most inconsistent part, i do remember a time (few season ago mind when ian smith was officiating) when we had VR at all games maybe not a screen but the ref was able to refer to the VR.
More to point why would their be extra cost all games have a TV crew at them and they employ 2 refs to stand in-goal at non televised games to judge, so why not sack one of them off, put the other in a a secluded room with no interruptions until after the game and allow them to watch in game replays, and in a similar vein the VR should be used to find reasons to disallow tries and not reasons to allow them.

Did look to me like sammut put his foot to the ball the "charge down" is a different kettle of fish Langley turned as the ball was kicked and it hit him in the back of the head, how is that a charge down, and their where 7 tackles, foster tipped the looping pass down which restarts the tackle count so the next tackle would have been 1 if im not mistaken they then got 6 more after that, even bentham went to stand in their line but the Catalan player played it instead, then bentham wussed out and allowed the play to carry on from which they got another set of 6 then scored.

Whilst I'm no big supporter of the video ref I DO think that all games should be refereed under the same rules and conditions. I think they should be at all games or none at all.

I thought it was played at.

If we're thinking of the same incident, then he pulled it back for not tapping it on the mark. Scruton was onside but actually stood in the way of where the tap restart should have been played.

I would agree, he did appear to attempt to block it with his foot. The ruling that infuriates me is when refs waved another set of six when a defender makes contact with the ball whilst attempting a tackle. Why is good pressure defence in effect penalised and the attacker rewarded with another six? Baffles me..

I think the same regarding drop goals, a player charges down the drop goal then gets penalised for their had work. The tackle count should still continue from the last play imo.

I'm glad i'm not the only one to have noticed the "quick" defences.

The problem with the Bulls is that we are too honest, and we retreat the 10 and then wait for the ball to be played. Big teams like Catalan then gain momentum and run over the forwards.

I have noticed that Wigan were masters at this when they last came to Odsal. Our forwards struggled to make 20 meters in a set of 5. They 'appeared' quick in defence, but they were all pushing through before the ball was played.

Towards the end of the game on Sunday I was thinking that not one penalty had to be given against either team for offside,don't care how disciplined the teams are,this just cannot happen

Congratulations on an excellant piece of detective work.