would really like refs to explain to fans what the difference is between 3 leeds players pushing moa back in a gang tackle with a fc player trying to halt them and 3 hull players pushing a leeds player into touch without the leeds players feet leaving the ground? 1 is play on yet the other gets a penalty! absolute shocking by the ref just as hull got back into the game swings it back in leeds favour!

One Hull player looked to be pulling. (IMO)

Cant pull.

sat in the north stand right above the incident, there wasnt any pulling, like i posted before there was no difference to leeds' gang tackle on moa that took him back 10-15 yards and the tackle that put the leeds player, bishop in touch

Thaler had called held and the Hull players carried on pushing. You can argue that Thaler was wrong have called held but once he did and the Hull players continued pushing he really had no option other than to give a penalty.

how long do you allow players to push, didnt seem to mind leeds players pushing moa back, if anything the push into touch was a shorter time. one of a few poor decisions by thaler tonight, very inconsistant!

I thought his feet had left the ground which results in a call of held. We dont judge it on time.

feet never left the ground from my view, refs are too quick to call held in tackles yet will let others go on a little more! as i said, inconsistant refereeing

Ganson biased towards Warrington?





Give over, the guy has hated us for years. In a way I'm glad he reffed that game, because he's currently the best ref in the competition, and if Silverwood hadn't have been stood down, he would have reffed that game, and he would have made sure Hudds won it.

And yet when Wire beat us in the last league game, when Atkins stole the ball from Westerman for the first try,he was driving him back for what seemed an eternity and held was never called by Ganson ( right decision as well imo)
And yet Thaler couldn't wait to shout held when the player was moving, ridiculous call on top of the blatant knock on just prior to that right in front of the touch judge.
Don't get me wrong, in no way am I making excuses, we got beaten by the better team plain and simple.Thought Thaler was poor, even if he had a blinder we still would have been comfortably beaten. You just despair sometimes at some of the blatant inconsistencies and schoolboy errors being made by officials.

Keep it simple, if the player is moving then refs should keep it shut, not be too quick in shouting held which we seem to be seeing more of.

If you keep it that simple then you end up with a rugby union maul. There has to be a held call at some point. That point is generally taken as being when a second attacker lends weight to attempt to stop his teammate being pushed back.
I think to the exact letter of the law Thaler was correct however a penalty seems a very harsh outcome for something like that. I'd be happy with simply the ref calling held and then the play the ball being taken at the point where the attacker was when the ref called held. That way if the defenders don't hear they aren't unduly punished.

As for the Atkins one, I'm unsure as to the ruling when there is only 1 defender. For me it was the right call. If another Wire player had been involved then it should have been called held.

That's exactly what he called held for - feet off the ground is instantly held. Personally I would have said play on but his call was grounded in the rules as he saw it.

Yes, he was truly one sided

I'm fairly sure Lauititi joined the tackle, so Thaler had no option other than to call held. Correct decision.

That's exactly what it was. What is wrong with people and their one eyed jelous bias.

The rules are quite clear and are adopted exactly the same with every ref at every game. The "gang" tackle on Moa as it was put, was Leeds playes pushing Moa back in the tackle in the field of playe, without an Hull team mate involved. Momentum did not stop until the ref shouted held.

The tackle of the Leeds player into touch, was momentum from a Hull "gang" tackle, but has soon as Lauititi lended weight to the tackle then the ref has to call held, which he duely did. The fact that Hull players continued to push back and into touch was their problem.

There is an argument like others have pointed out, where when the refs call is not heard that we go back to where the ref shouted held, rather than a pen. But that would require a change to the rules. As it stands Thaler was spot on in both incidents.

It happened against Hull last week though to be fair. Atkins was pushing Westerman back, another Hull player joined in, tackle should've been called held but he stole the ball and ran off...

serves him right for not jumping on the floor to avoid being tackled like a coward then doesn't it.

lol

Sadly 100% untrue.


This is indeed the correct application of the 'lending weight' rule. I think people are confused because you so rarely see it enforced - one case in point being just last week during Hull vs Wire.

But he didn't give it for lending weight, he gave it for the Leeds player's feet leaving the ground at which point it is automatically a held call. Not convinved that was the case personally.

Brilliant bit of power, skill and quick thinking from Atkins - always knew he was freakishly strong, but Smith has clearly found something in him that Mr Kear never could.

If I recall correctly, that one wasn't called held because the second Hull player was adjudged to have not leant weight in a meaningful way.

It's an interesting dilemma - if it's not consistently dealt with, I predict that the wrestlemania coaching will switch to a Union style tackle technique, that involves holding up the tackled player and forcing him back 10 or 20 metres; some Aussie coaches are like car thieves, changing their aproach to bypass the latest protections that are put in place to thwart them.

Which isn't in the laws at all.

Yet another example of Ganson making it up as he goes along.

Does 'lending weight' really need to be explicitly described in tiny detail though? We're not playing tig, so it seems safe to assume that the act of lending weight would require some weight to be leant. Doesn't it?

think if you watch the leeds gang tackle you will see a second hull player involved! but then again leeds are perfect in everything they do on the pitch!

Apparently not...


The key word here is "immediately". There is no requirement for movement to be halted or some random subjective assessment by the official about how much weight is being lent - the instant a second player from the attacking team joins the tackle he should call "held".

No, the key words are "lend their weight in order to avoid losing ground."

If the rule was intended to allow the tackle to be called held the instant another attacker *touched* the tackled player, it would say that.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.