quote from ganson.: if you cut me do i not bleed?
hull fc fan: yea.. red and white.
should have gone to specsavers....

It would never have got to the point that it did if Ganson & his officials had made the right call.

People calling Ganson an idiot are wrong that would mean he has no idea what he is doing when he clearly does as he does this almost every game when the TV is on him. Yet when it's not IMO he is the best ref in the game. He just likes the attention i bet he gets of on it tbh and will enjoy himself when he gets back to his Hotel room late at night.

The thing is his positioning for the pass was horrific he was stood near enough on the dead ball line. Houghton and Russell ended up giving up on trying to get a penalty for their markers not standing square in the second half.

As wound up as I'am at tossing away a 14 point lead, I think its a complete embarrassment to the game that forward passes like that go undetected. With Monday night RL aimed at spreading the word, any newcomer tuning in today will consider it a joke that with a video ref the try still stands. If it was like union and the ref asked the video ref if there is any reason not to award the try then blatant forward passes would be picked up. The 50/50s would stay with the infield officials.

I certainly don't think it's the last we'll hear from it but I do expect that our coach will follow the usual channels, as opposed to whingeing in the media. I thought it was hilarious to hear Sandercock criticising the VR decison for KR to drop out because he "clearly saw" that Briscoe had put the ball dead.

I'm pleased we have a head coach who can keep his emotions in check and knows how to make complaints, I'm also convinced that the way he conducts himself means that any complaint he may have will be listened to with a sympathetic ear.

if kangeroovers got that given as a forward, kangeroovers wouldve not been opn the front foot. simple

His positioning for the (non)try was spot on, where would you suggest he stands, 30 metres above the play? That close to the line a referee will always be in the in-goal. Even from head-on, it was an obvious forward pass but it was a line call and the TJ should have given it. Now whether he did and Ganson refused to acknowledge it, is a whole different ball game.

Define "blatant" and you might be getting somewhere. We've scored enough points from forward passes in the past and will score many more in the future.

Stop looking for someone else to blame for our inability to defend against Hodgson's 2nd try, you know, the one that actually lost us the game.

Yes I'm suggesting he levitates



Refs will not always be in that position at all.

if that kangeroovers "try" wasn't given, then kangeroovers wouldn't have had the wind in there sails

We lost by 2. Dobson's try was worth 4. I'd say the decision to award that try cost us the game.

Part of me can't help but wonder is he was 'evening' this out after the Dobson sinbinning.

Only the officials to blame. They do their job the game is ours. 50/50 I can live with, 3 yards forwards is inexcusable.

wikepedia... ganson= female clown
wikepedia...what do you call a female clown
answer.......a clunt......

It's all irrelevant anyway. Decisions like that make the game exciting according to Eddie Hemmings. And we wonder why we will always be a minority sport.

How blatant would you like your forward passes? Short of donnin a helmet, shoulder pads and Leeds Rhinos shirt and launching the fckin thing down the field how much more blatant does it get?

I appreciate the passion of the moment may have clouded your obvious inability to comprehend the answer I had given to a specific post but, for the sake of clarity I'll make another attempt.

He suggested that a video referee should be able to adjudicate on "blatant" forward passes, all I asked him to do was define "blatant".

By the way, I belive that calling the Dobson try as a blatant forward pass is not debatable, what I was asking for is a definition of "blatant", so we could get a semblance of consistency, otherwise what some may call blatant may not be as blatant to others.

Happy? Or shoudl they just be called "blatant" when they're against us?

if the hands are pointing forward to pass, the blantant forward....not hard is it

Try looking at the Laws of the Game, read the section on forward passes and then come back with something approaching a coherent statement.

Turn on your television. Watch that try again. There's your definition of blatant.

If in further doubt, rewind the footage and watch it again. That's a second opinion on blatant.

If still in doubt, watch the try again, that would be your third example of blatant.

If still not sure of what blatant is, wind the tape back and have another look.

And so on.

Happy? Or should I find one that's seven yards forward and not giving you the chance to slate the team you claim to support?

Even had the linesman had reported the forward pass Ganson would have only done his own thing he doesn't take notice of anybody ,he is a law unto himself

They say that they can't use the Video Ref, as different camera angles give different outcomes. Isn't that the same as onside/offside at the point someone kicks a ball?.
If it was slightly forward we cold shrug our shoulders and say some you lose, some you win.
This wasn't slightly forward though. If we accept decisions like this as a game, we will never be taken seriously. And rightly so.
I'd have like to have seen the Sky reaction if it had been Leeds on the end of that decision. I'm sure it wouldn't have been dismissed as making the game exciting.

Quote ="cod'ead"I appreciate the passion of the moment may have clouded your obvious inability to comprehend the answer I had given to a specific post but, for the sake of clarity I'll make another attempt. He suggested that a video referee should be able to adjudicate on "blatant" forward passes, all I asked him to do was define "blatant". By the way, I belive that calling the Dobson try as a blatant forward pass is not debatable, what I was asking for is a definition of "blatant", so we could get a semblance of consistency, otherwise what some may call blatant may not be as blatant to others. Happy? Or shoudl they just be called "blatant" when they're against us?'" Couldn't find one as forward, but this will do as it's the nearest comparison. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSjrPzrS6cU

Quote ="cod'ead"I appreciate the passion of the moment may have clouded your obvious inability to comprehend the answer I had given to a specific post but, for the sake of clarity I'll make another attempt. He suggested that a video referee should be able to adjudicate on "blatant" forward passes, all I asked him to do was define "blatant". By the way, I belive that calling the Dobson try as a blatant forward pass is not debatable, what I was asking for is a definition of "blatant", so we could get a semblance of consistency, otherwise what some may call blatant may not be as blatant to others. Happy? Or shoudl they just be called "blatant" when they're against us?'" Couldn't find one as forward, but this will do as it's the nearest comparison. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSjrPzrS6cU

OK, I appreciate that I may be talking to the terminally stupid here but there MUST be a clear definition. If you decide that the definition of a forward pass is the one that led to the Dobson try, then fine, that's what we'll use. So anything that goes equally or further forward than the Dobson try is forward and anything that doesn't travel as far forward is not forward. Is that what you are trying to say? Because if you are going to make changes to the way a forward pass is decided upon and adjudicated, then you'd better make sure that what you suggest is better than what we currently have. So far all you've managed to do is convince me that your argument is, like yourself, stupid.