This thread shows the fan problem, everyone is banging on about what's wrong and how it should be reffed - but your opinions as to WHY it's wrong are very different. If you can't all agree with each other on how it should be done then clearly no ref can please all of you!

The refs do seem to have been told to speed up the PTB this year, this has led to a lot of early penalties while the players get the message, but as to the specifics,
a) you're dealing with fractions of a second, there IS no "magic moment" where a ref has to call held, it is all a matter of interpretation.
b) I disagree that "held" should be called quicker as many teams have become very good at offloading in the tackle, quite a few players manage to turn and pass significantly after their main forward momentum has been halted, and I don't want that eliminating from the game. And, by definition, if the player is able to pass, then he is not "held", is he?

The worst thing about the PTB to me is the fact that the refs have clearly been told to ignore the laws of the game on how to PTB. In many games you can go a whole half seemingly without a single player actually playing the ball with the foot, and this is giving the attacking team a huge unfair advantage. EVERY time a player rolls the ball back to the acting half-back it is a clear penalty, it HAS to be "placed" (or "dropped", but that's another story). The ball is almost never "placed", because then this causes the delay while your foot gets to the stationary ball and propels it backwards. it is almost always illegally rolled.

Either sort this out, or change the rule to permit it.

The vast majority of what's wrong with the game is the policing of the PTB both from attack and defence. defenders encroaching the '10m' before the ball has even hit the ground, defenders not getting off the tackled player when held called, defenders messing about, nudging/arm in etc etc, add to that not even square half the time.
Attackers moving off the mark (some by 3-4 metres!), saw a defender penalised for standing his ground as the attacker walked forward into him which is crazy!
Attackers not playing the ball when it's taking the mick is frustrating but given the advantages for the defender at the PTB due to the way the officials apply the laws you can let the vast majority go IMHO

Wow, Hull screwed by VR there

Total joke decision, should be 12-0 then its straight 6-6 from a bent decision

Complete joke . Should have gone 2 try's up but games all square . These decisions can change the game and tbh it wasn't even a debatable decision

Thought it was correct call myself. Hull player originally contesting kick then wraps his arms around player and tackles him in air. It was harsh but right call for me. If they had slowed that try against my team I would be fuming.

Great performance from Silverwood this half. 100% improvement on last week. Play the ball a bit slow but only penalties have been justified. Gareth Ellis just proving my point there.

he's lost the ball before contact - like you say if its against your team you would be livid

its hard to know what to say if your Radford at HT, his team haven't done too much wrong and should be ahead really.

I'd agree with that. What's laughable is last year in a similar situation with Hardaker, except Hardaker didn't try and place hands on the opposition guy and only went for the ball, Stuart Cummings said it was a clear foul, tonight he said it was fine.

Is this not a try, considering they allowed that Leeds one last week?

I would say yes, considering it went up as a try.you say last week but similar with the HKR one that got disallowed simply because it went up as no try. No consistency again.

True.

I was massively surprised Bentham never even looked at a second angle, seemed odd.

No it's not a try.

Not comparable. Just like the HKR one the other week we're talking about someone who had the ball and lost contact with it. Leeds one was a grubber kick and loose ball and whether he got downward pressure on it. No question of the ball becoming separated from the hand of the ball carrier so just like last week when someone called it, they aren't comparable incidents.

There was no downward pressure on the Leeds one either. Like I posted after the game there's a difference between having downward pressure on the ball and the ball having downward pressure on the ground.

All 3 are fingertips on the ball as it's on the ground and absolutely comparable.

Poor decision for the tackle in the air, but it seems that Hull have given up after that.

all that early season confidence from Hull fans seems a far cry away, i did suggest the Radford out stuff might start after 6 rounds this year, if they carry on not bothering defending then it might just be!

In your opinion.



As pointed out, they really aren't comparable.

he clearly lost the ball, no try for me, i wish all this fingernail stuff would stop, he dropped the ball simple..or it should be!

Regardless of the knock on you can't tackle someone in the air. The player might have been able to get a fingertip to the ball on the way down which would've knocked the ball away from Manu's path or he might've been able to aid defensively to stop Manu getting over the try line but is essentially taken out illegally.

You pointed out that the ball was already on the floor for the Leeds try. Well done Sherlock.

I pointed out one was from a grubber kick and the other two were ball carriers losing contact with the ball. A massive yet simple difference that you can't grasp.

I know you want to say they're the same and say the Leeds one shouldn't be given.....because well it was scored by Leeds.

How's that for comparable?

Oh my aching sides

Replays didn't show separation unlike the Hull one which clearly showed separation on the way down.

You seem to be of the thinking that all fingertip tries are the same. It's the clear separation on the Hull and HKR ones that's the problem.

Meanwhile Widnes are playing some great stuff, really smart attacking footy.