Can’t see any other threads about last night’s game on here so I will add to this one

Good game, really enjoyed it and Hull FC are starting to become an 80 minute team

Some very good performances and in particular from some young English centre and wing partnerships... Briscoe being the clear stand out of course and his second try couldn’t have been scored by many players in Super League, the combination of strength and speed he has is very impressive

Pity the thread is about the ref and all the negatives from last night and not the game itself but I guess you get used to that when you’re a Rugby League fan

He doesn't SAY anything, he shouts continually, I suppose that's what grates the most. But I suggest you go back through the derby and the London games, he's certainly got little to no good things to say about us.

Because he dropped the ball.

We hardly played amazingly against London to be fair.

I don't judge his performance on what he has to say about us. I judge it on how good his analysis of the play is, and it's very good. Highlights the weakness in the defensive line early in the piece, says where they should have been, and what the attack did well to spot and take advantage of it. And he picks out the subtle but relevant things as well, something that Cullen tried to do but failed miserably at (timing the play the balls and trying to show a significant difference when there wasn't really). And he doesn't get into bickering about the ref/the players/the RFL. He's very level headed IMO.

Where on that video replay can you conclusively say he dropped the ball?

Having been at the game, seen the tv replays there, and subsequently at home, there is not evidence to suggest that's is the case. There is no clear view of Tickle touching down. There is clear evidence of the ball being grounded without any sort of bounce or wobble suggesting a drop.

HTH

Tickle had hold of the ball as we was going to ground and then before he got to ground, he had lost hold of it. Of that much there is no doubt.

He did not touch the ball down with either hand. Because neither hand was any longer in contact with it. The non-technical term for this is "he dropped it".

The ball may well never have left contact with Tickle's chest, but you can only legally score a try with your chest by dropping on a loose ball which is in play. Not one that you yourself dropped which becomes a knock on as soon as the ball hits the ground.

The first Leeds try was a forward pass but that was the linesman's call not the ref. Most of the top teams (which regularly shift the ball out wide, to prolific wingers) score tries like that, unchallenged, week in week out, where invariably not only the last pass, but the previous pass to the centre are both forward. Most of them are let go, so it's unsurprising that this one was too. But a mistake.

The short forward pass WAS marginally forward. Only very marginally, but technically a correct call. It would have irritated the hell out of me if I'd been a Leeds fan simply as those short balls are almost never given as forward, even when obviously so, but the fact that short forward passes ("line balls"icon_wink.gif to players coming on your shoulder are rarely called doesn't make it a wrong decision, A highly unusual one to actually give, but correct.

Child had a pretty good game, apart from not sending Webb off. I'd sin-bin him every 5 minutes.

Where the ball drops to the floor without any hands on it. That's why it wasn't given. simple really.

Simple if it's clear that that happened. I disagree, as do many others. I had a Saints fan text me at the time asking how the hell they disallowed that.

I had a Warrington supporter text me that he thought the decision was spot on.

Why would anyone want to communicate with you.

You seem fairly keen, that's 2 messages you've sent me in the last 10 minutes or so, I guess we are friends now. Can I add you to my Christmas card list?

Indeed you can. Can you make sure its not made from stiff card as I would like to wipe my a*se on it.

The point I'm making is that it's not just Hull fans that think that.

And why would a Warrington fan text you during a Hull vs Leeds game?

None of this is apparent from any of the angles shown by Sky - not even the super-duper close-up they showed later. I'm therefore curious as to what evidence you have used to come to these conclusions.

Even if you accepted the fact that Tickle lost the ball at some point - and as mentioned that's far from clear - you would have to be certain that it wasn't knocked from his hand by the tackler and/or that he didn't regain contact before it hit the ground. Once again, none of this can be ascertained with any certainty from the footage.

In other words, this incident is pretty much what the BOD rule was made for. The VR has to be [icertain[/i that no try was scored in order to rule it out. If there is any doubt whatsoever it should be allowed.

The VR gave it no try so he must have been certain that it was no try.
This is were Premier Sports is great as the video ref talks you through what he is looking for and the reasons he gives for his decision either way. It would clear up a lot of issues with fans I think and we wouldn't be having this kind of debate on a weekly cycle

Or he got it wrong.

Just saying, like.

If I were in a minority of about 3 people in the world who believed I could see something that nobody else could, I'd be looking to be made a saint.


"Far from clear" gives your game away though. Either he lost the ball (he did) or else he didn't lose the ball. The fact you say "that's far from clear" means you actually saw him lose it. Like the rest of us. Otherwise, what ELSE is "far from clear". What are you saying -that you concede he [imight[/i have lost the ball? I reckon you are. Based on what?

I conclude you saw him lose the ball too - you are just having a hard time admitting it.


Even you could not construct the remotest tale that his hands regained the ball. I'm sorry, that is absurd.





Leaving aside that there [iwasn't[/i any doubt, either in the opinion of the VR or the overwhelming majority of viewers, you won't get anywhere with that dotty argument to a Bulls fan! BoD?? I give you Michael Withers, and a perennial host of crazy follow-ups!

But anyway, I viewed the incident as a largely unbiased fan, and any bias I may have had would have been pro-try anyway. I am 100% satisfied that I saw it exactly the same way as did the VR (and most everyone else) and I'll go with that.

Or subsequently, you could make an appointment at specsavers?




That is possibly the most illogical theory I've ever heard.

Far from clear means it wasn't clear what happened either way. It means he (and I and others) cannot see where the ball has apparently come free, but also cannot see that it is kept in control or not. There are too many things blocking the incident. What you can see is a hand on the ball. That's why it's called "Benefit of the Doubt", as he'd have been given benefit of the doubt as to how it got there as nothing else shows conclusively that he lost it (and if he did, why/how and whether it hit the ground before being regained).

How you've got "far from clear" means he lost the ball is beyond me. It means what it says! It's far from clear WHETHER he lost the ball, not THAT he lost the ball.

Even you could not construct the remotest tale that his hands regained the ball. I'm sorry, that is absurd.


An overwhelming majority? Most Leeds fans I've spoken to aren't even sure whether they'd have said no try. Just because it's a majority in your opinion doesn't mean it actually is!


That's fine, and that's your opinion. But I and "an overwhelming majority" including those apparently in the Sky team couldn't see where the ball was lost.
The VR isn't always right.

No. It means I didn't see him lose it but I'm willing to accept the [ipossibility[/i that he might have given that the footage isn't definitive one way or the other.

I've viewed the footage many, many more times than you have. It's inconclusive. By definition that means the try should have been given. It's hardly a travesty that it wasn't and I'm not suggesting it was the worst decision ever, but anyone suggesting that you can clearly see Tickle drop the ball and/or fail to ground it really does need a trip to the opticians.

Picked up my current specs there only a month ago so if you have a beef about my eyesight you should take it up with them




I aim to please.


Whoa!! let me stop you right there. The views of Leeds fans simply do not count, surely we agree on that at least?


That's a bit of a quantum leap from a statement that the VR was correct on this one occasion, isn't it? Only a fool would say he is always right. And I or any Bulls fan could point you to a million definitive incidents where he wasn't. Who said they were infallible?

Good.


How do you know? I might have had it on loop since the weekend with my eyelids propped up with matchsticks


It isn't.

That might explain your apparent state of ocular ineptitude.


I refer my learned friend to my earlier comment regarding a trip to his local ophthalmologist.

Meh. It never did Malcolm McDowell any harm

I did. She says you are almost certainly severely myopic, probably with an astigmatism, and she could fit you in tomorrow afternoon, though in truth she fears there's no point.

Tell that to John Crichton




Pfft. I'm actually hyperopic so I suggest that she probably obtained her credentials via a dodgy mail-order 'University'.