I've had a think about this and I think you're correct. The referee ('s VR and on field) has to find a reason that it's [inot[/i a try. Hodgson pretty much [idid[/i score a try with what was (I think) illegal interference (suffered with that myself, counselling cast a flipping fortune). As a Rovers fan, I'll take the draw!





Probably not.

You can apparently also be 5 miles offside as in the case of Lolesi and be allowed to play on to rob a draw

Agreed. He would have had to make 14 meters in one second to be able to catch that ball whilst onside. Still, we were very lucky with both calls, as IMO both should have been penalty tries.

Still, if anyone said to me we'd get a draw tonight I'd have snapped their arm off. I'm certain we will finish top 8 now.

its a problem with the rules rather than the ruling in my opinion.

Hodgeson was almost certain to score, almost being the important word. He wasnt certain to score so a penalty try cannot be given, Fox blatantly and deliberatly fouled a player to stop them scoring, but as they werent in the act of doing so, a penalty try cant be given. Its a stupid rule that makes it in Fox's best interest to commit foul play to stop a player scoring but those are the rules.

I would rather see the ruling be a player committing deliberate act of foul play to stop a player scoring a try as a penalty try, but that isnt the ruling. so we have to accept it was the right ruling, even if the rule is clearly wrong

On the Galea tackle off the ball situation...Brown is not certain to gather the ball cleanly and score, the player that grounded the ball did so on the dead ball line anyway so even if play on were to be given it would have been a 20mtr restart.

As for the tackle in the air, it hasn't been donkey's years at all that this rule about tackling and attacking player in the air is illegal, I did my coaching badge around 6yrs ago and it was certainly the case then and I have the rule book that the RFL provided me with to prove this!!!!!

And now looking back around 4minutes, neither of these decisions should have mattered as Lolesi should have been penalised for being offside, Rovers would have kicked for touch making the 20mtr line and then the pressure is back on Huddersfield at the wrong end of the field for them! Not only do the two penalty try none decisions not matter Rovers were also robbed of the 2pts by an inept touch judge.

Lolesi was never judged off side and there was no evidence to clearly show he was so that's a bit of a mute point. However, kr clearly infringed on 2 seperate occasions to deny hudds a try

There was no way Lolesi was onside from the initial kick IMO, unfortunately, for HKR, there wasn’t a camera in the whole ground that picked it up!

The rule has only fairly recently been updated to state you can't tackle any player in the air fielding a kick, it previously stated you could not tackle a defending player in the air and did not state categorically that you could not tackle the attacking player. It does suggest that some coaches might need to re-read the laws of the game though!

The 'no tackling in the air' rule has been in place for years. Several years at least. And regardless, even if it was only introduced 5 minutes before kick-off yesterday, it's still illegal to tackle in the air.

There is no evidence Lolesi was offside. The VR deemed him onside, and bearing in mind VRs are equipped with wider monitors than our TVs and can see a wider panoramic view than than we can, we have to accept the VR can see him on the fringes and he was onside.

There are 2 classic penalty tries. The 1999 NRL Grand Final when Smith was clothes-lined with the ball in his hand just before grounding (funnily enough, against Nathan Brown's St George team), and the 2008 World Cup Final when Hohaia was felled while chasing the ball.
Smith caught a kick over the tryline and was smashed in the head, dropping the ball when hit. He would almost certainly have grounded and scored. Penalty try.
Hohaia was taken out on the tryline with the ball about 2 yards away and bouncing, and other players chasing it down. For me, hard to call it a guaranteed try, but given according to the rules: as in, the referee thinks the try would have been scored.
Last night: Hodgson catches the ball and is travelling over the tryline. There is nothing to say he wouldn't have grounded it WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. Nothing. Fox tackles him - ILLEGALLY - and pushes him into touch, something that wouldn't have happened if he had not interfered.


How anyone - even KR fans - can say Hodgson wouldn't have scored if Fox had not interfered is beyond me.

it's been around since start of superleague at least if not longer.

Case in point, GB v the kiwis in 1998, keith senior catches a bomb and just needs to fall over the line to put the ball down to win the match and probably us the series, henry paul catches him in mid air and puts him into touch, seniors feet never touched the floor before he went over the line, bill harrigan waves it off, cue furore from everyone that actually knows the rules as it was a blatant illegal challenge and the most obvious penalty try ever.

Galea went for the ball in a one on one, end of story, its not his fault Brown lost control.

Wakey got one against us that was wrong, we were winning and it turned the game.

personally i think the hudds player lolesi? was well offside for the initial kick through anyway.

the galea incident was ok, you can't take away the players right to try and prevent a try in that way, he clearly made a play for the ball.

the tackle in the air for me was a penalty, fox could have waited till hodgesons feet hit the ground and then smashed him into touch

For my two-penneth ...

Lolesi offside ... yes.

Galea entitled to go for the ball at the same time as Brown ... yes.

Fox guilty of tackling in the air ... yes.

Penalty try ... no ... you could not be 100% certain a try would have followed (and he appeared to lose control of the ball).

Penalty ... in the situation, yes but in theory it should all have stopped at the Lolesi offside.

As a one eyed biased rovers fan I obviously dont think any were penalty tries. As a long standing fan of the game though there are a couple of things that bother me. What do people expect Fox to do? just stand there watch him catch it let him score, the Galea/Brown it is two men heading for the same point in space should galea just let him walk over. We watch a hard contact sport, it seems that there is a growing movement to take out the contact, Having played this game over 40 years ago & being subject to spear tackles & head shots it is a lot better now but to penalise a player who hits the ball carrying arm & slips up into the face is a farce. Putting a player in a dangerous position is also a farce especialy when they have controlled his fall to prevent hurting the player.Common sense has gone out of the game.What was needed was the game to come down hard on the type of player who went out to deliberatly hurt others but the over protection of the kicker has gone to far, we used to protect against attacking the standing leg which worked OK but if a kicker wants plenty of time to kick stand further back. I suspect that half of the rules now are to prevent clubs & the RFL from facing compensation claims but that is another topic for discussion.

There were other options.
Jump and compete for the ball.
Tackle him once he landed.


I remember a few years ago in a test match when Robbie Paul tackled Keith Senior in the air as Senior caught a kick in the Kiwis in-goal area. It wasn't given as a penalty try, but everyone apart from the ref seemed to think it should have been.

Give the man a coconut !!

ok,my take on this as a completely unbiased giants fan who has not had the benefit of watching the playback.

lolesi offside? on first viewing from my position on the halfway line,he looked offside,however the evidence or lack of it proved inconclusive so play on.

galea/brown, again on first viewing it looked like galea tackled brown without the ball, on watching the big screen at the ground,again probably benefit of the doubt, BUT how many times have we seen tries disallowed because a player from the attacking side has deemed to have interfered with a defender? and had it been anywhere else on the field a penalty would probably have been given?

fox/hodgson, for me it was a penalty try,im almost certain hodgson would have grounded the ball had he not been tackled illegally,but i think the penalty was the right decision in the end.

all in all though some you win,some you lose, had those decisions been the other way round i probably wouldn't have been happy, so for me its a point gained because i thought rovers were just about the better side, a point deserved for both teams imo and a cracking end to a cracking game

On the dead ball line btw.

The Kevin Brown effort-no try

David Hodgson effort -no try but a penalty,both right decisions for me.

Brown got there before the Hull KR player. The Hull KR player is not entitled to tackle Brown until he collects the ball. I know why the Hull KR player went for broke, but it was against the rules, unfortunately Silverwood thought differently. Hodgson should have had a penalty try, that was the most blatant professional you are likely to see.

Would be interested to hear from Silverwood why he made the decisions he made.

blah blah blah deal with it its a draw all though we was the better team but a point is better than nothing so stop moaning

Perfectly formed scrum I see? No need to reset that then

A classic example of where Golden Point extra time would of been ideal methinks.

I seem to recall a thread about that on here???





Vote 'Yes'

You know Barry McKenzie makes sense.

No No No & No again if you cant win in 80 minutes then why should yiou get an extra go? why should any team get 90 minutes to get 2 points & in theory catch up to a play off place when pherhaps the team above beat them in 80.