Of course, what we all have to remember is Leeds have never benefitted in any way whatsoever through poor refereeing. Remember that, kids.

That's probably the only decision Alibert got wrong.

Balances out the blatant forward pass for the Leeds try.

Hi Graeme.

I am quite ashamed to have watched that performance with little interest in the result due to the ineptitude of the officials. Alibert made 2 absolutely unbelieveable decisions, not including the "offside". That was just embarrassing, I am very worried that Alibert will one day have something more to do with one of our matches.

Aye was just going to say that.

Would the player Newton obstructed have got to Jeffries? No.

The big problem from the officials tonight was the blatant disregard of forward passes. I wouldn't like to see it, but the day they're allowed to be judged by the VR can't come quick enough.

So yes lets just ignore the unbelievable performance because it levels out against Leeds



And I bet there were no complaints last time Leeds benefitted

Clueless.

Agree, the whingeing about the ref threatens to take away just how well Bradford played. Jeffries and Menzies were superb, Halley even better.

Rikki Sherriffe!

Having seen 3 games this weekend the levels of inconsistency among the officials on the pitch has been painful to watch.

Alibert in the Quins match made a series of bizzare, random decisions, picking and choosing when he would penalise certain offences.

Ganson ignored offside for the WHOLE of the Hull derby. Fine, the game flowed, but then in the Quins match players were getting pinged all over the place. Leeds and Bradford players were getting done for it as well. Smith was diabolical tonight and his performance embarrassing.

I would be interested to hear how the other officials have fared up this weekend.

Now, I'm being serious here Dave.

I couldn't begin to argue the case that ignoring Newton's block on the second Bradford try was questionable. But what else did he get obviously wrong? Alibert, I mean.

Yep, magic Bradford performance, Super League glory beckons.

Yeah alright then.

I think he realised that the pass from Burrow to Webb was a mile forward but he didn't give it straight away, hence he found another fault with the play. However, to the letter of the law he is correct, and the game should be played to the letter of the law. I did say at the time though, that happens from nearly every kick inside there own half.

The problem is, the referee has given that decision, but it is unlikely that they will be consistent with it.

"Welcome to the new NRL-Super League where blockers are more than acceptable, providing you score from that play".

Which post is that supposed to be a reply to?

If it's mine, please come back and reply when you are sober.

I think what you are seeing is a lot of queried plays that where open to different interpretations by different refs, and commentators and the general public at large.

Its just plain simple thinking to think that everything is black and white, as we all know these are grey areas and they could really have gone different ways, but a decision needs to be made, and you and I have the luck of not having to make an outright 100% decision.

THere was a great decision in my book when Webb got ruled offside when they powered through for that try, initially Stevo was in uproar, but Phil Clarke got it bang on, a player can't possible expect to start 10 yards ahead of all his team mates, thats just plain wrong, if it where allowed , then why not just position 2 players up the pich somewhere and kick through, meaning that once an onside player touches the ball he immediately has 2 helpers to pass too.

The French referee Thierry Alibert made some courageous decisions that your typical English referee would not dare make, for fear of bloody retribution.

Calling the Leeds forward pass was one.

His courage and professionalism are evidence of the reasons why we are trying to develop the game in France, among referees as much as players.

I will be glad to reply with a serious reply rather than some idiots on here as I am genuinely interested.

The block was more then questionable, it was clearly an off the ball hit and an automatic penalty.

I struggle to understand how JJB could have "knocked on", judging by the fact that the ball was flat at worst, never touched the floor or another player and was a pass.

With regards to the Webb try, I can sort of see where the video ref is comin from but question how Webb could have possibly ever got onside. Would he have had to run backwards to where Sinfield kicked the ball? When can he ever get involved in play? Should Smith have blown up for an instant penalty? How many more penalties will occur as a result of such "offsides"?

No, it wasn't.

Plus, i've not had a drink all night.

6/10

No, it really doesn't and Stevo was talking $hite on this point.

From a kick the players are usually ahead of the kicker, but not in front of the actual play the ball as it is happening, that is the issue here.

They are all behind the ptb but as the ball is passed back to the kicker the forwards head upfield, that is completely different to what happened tonight, and completely legal as long as the kicker then plays them onside, or thy give 10m to the receiver. I thought it was an excellent call, and had he missed it, they would have spotted it on Sky and ripped him for it!

I'm sorry, but no way on this earth was that a pass. He stuck his hand out and it hit it, and the ball quite clearly went forward, when Sinfield caught it. Hence it's a knock on. If Sinfield wasn't there then it would have hit the floor, and he didn't attempt to flick the ball on so no way was it a pass, he quite clearly just stuck a hand out and the ball his his hand and went forward, hence a knock on.

I deliberately didn't mention that last decision as I am not 100% what I think about it.

As I have stated on another thread, what is Webb supposed to do? Run backwards after Sinfield took the kick?

not get involved in the play is the simple answer.

I wouldn't bother with a drink my friend. You clearly don't need it.