Widnes were almost constantly offside particularly in the first half when they had the energy for a rush defence. Defenders are not allowed to begin their forward movement until the ball player has touched the ball with his foot (or attempted to it seems these days). Defenders are not allowed to begin moving forward inside the 10 when the ball is placed, or is being placed, on the ground. That is what Widnes were doing.

In terms of us 'standing there and waiting' we would have only conceded 4 points had the correct decisions been awarded - whilst there's always room for improvement that is a good standard. Anyone watching who understands would also have seen some really good wide defence with very few players 'rushing in' against an expansive attack.

In terms of the try decisions Silverwood awarded a try to Widnes after a clear knock on by them and disallowed a perfectly good Hull try when he had chance to refer it to the video referee. He should be disappointed with his performance and it's a good job the score line wasn't closer.

Thanks for your contribution. If you can stop getting round the swear filter it would be appreciated.

Thought sky commentary was spot on in their summary of us.
Silverwood made poor decisions for both sides as Ah Van knocked the ball backwards before gathering and making the break so it worked both ways.
Widness line speed in defence was quicker then ours and if Widness were off side then so we're we.
Wish fans would not just see what goes against us and focus on that and actually appreciate what we get away with and that every team in SL encroaches at the play of the ball and we are certainly no different

This game (the 3rd easter game is always without fail poor)
We are a team low on numbers low on confidence but finding a way to win again. The ref killed the chance of it being a decent game to watch.
Widnes got 2 of the 3 they lost back on. We lost Bowden n Sa for the last quarter.
This widnes team was the best equipped to put a performance in this game with so many fresh bodies. We deserve some credit for that to be fair. When you say other teams would put 50 on them who do you mean? Wire? Catalans? Saints maybe?
Your user name seems massively inappropriate!
Team of Pussies? Technically we've been pants this year but won the stats in most games. Particulary in the forwards. So what are you suggesting. We go out n straight from the whistle start swinging n prove how Ard we are?

Ah Van only made the break because Hull stopped after the whistle went. He certainly wouldn't have gone 80 odd yards anyway.

Wish fans could see things as simple as that.

I thought the thoughts from Sky were a little harsh.

I usually like both Wells and Brian ('never mind who I think will will from here Clare (Balding), I had £50 on Hull before the match!'

- 2005 CC Final) Carney. Both were correct in questioning our last tackle plays and the two examples they showed, highligthed how disorganised we often are. We were exactly the same in the Derby game.

However, they were harsh in making out that we won only due to two lucky interceptions and a rebound off the post. Well they can't have it both ways.

In the first half, the commentary team praised Heremaia for getting back and intercepting Lineham's pass to snuff out Hull's attack. Then despite praising Lineham for holding his position, before intercepting for his hat trick, they still said we were lucky to get two interceptions?

Lineham made those two tries, picking out the long pass. As he said himself, he backed himself as the defence had forced Widnes out wide. If he got it wrong, he would be at fault, but he didn't and still had to out pace everyone to score.

As for Shaul's try, Sky can't have it both ways. As I said, they were quite correct in critising our last tackle plays, but let's at least give credit to Hull for this try. Rankin's obviously called the move, delivered a good grubber kick towards the post. At this stage, you've bought a ticket for the raffle and you give yourself a chance. We had two men backing up against their one, Shaul watched the ball and scooped up the rebound to score. If Leeds, Wigan or Saints had scored that move, they'd be singing their praises, not saying that they were lucky.

We just need a little balance here. I've been critical of the team and Coach over the past few weeks, however they've just gone out and won the last two games. Widnes were a little unfortunate to suffer the double collision, but it happens in our sport. At the end of the day, we won and kept another Super League team down to below 8 points and that is no mean feat.

We are not the finished article by a long way. However, we have stopped the rot and this morning I'm sure the team and Coach will rightly feel a lot happier than they did a week ago. Well played lads and well done Lee Radford. We have a chance to build on these results over the coming weeks and post a few more wins. Let's hope we do.

Sky hates us....yawn, all the Refs that have ever refereed a Hull Fc match have been biased against us...yadder yadder .Radio Humberside are Hull KR fans.....zzzzz. Are these really the thoughts of mature adults? Absolutely pathetic self pity and paranoia. Grow up.

Well said Andy.

Had it been Matty Smith or Danny McGuire hitting the post with their kick no doubt they'd have reminded us how they 'practice all week' to do just that.
It's cringeworthy how Hemmings struggles with players' names if they don't play for Saints/Wire/Wigan or Leeds. Thought Carney and Wells were justified in pointing out our last tackle debacles but we deserved to win no question.

good post rugby raider spot on mate

Whilst we may not have been great and may not have beaten a better team we were never in danger of losing and its not often we can say that.

Exactly. You can only beat what is front of you and last night (and Monday) we did. We haven't always done that, but last night we did and I also enjoyed the fact that we never looked like losing.

Small steps, but hopefully we have turned a corner.

Mate, if Danny McGuire or Kevin Sinfield had done that........ Stevo's superlatives would have sent his Drinking Bingo Card into orbit!!

Both sides were stood offside most of the game. I think he gave one or two token penalties each for it. Added to this he was regularly only going back 8 or so metres and also completely failed to police the ruck meaning the game was slow which probably suited us to be fair. widnes probably looked to be taking more advantage as they played a more high intensity defensive game than us

What amazes me is, the fact that at most PTB's one or more defenders are clearly stood within touching distance of the ref, and in front of him before the ball is played, and they (the refs) either don't see it, or choose to ignore it.
If they clamped down on it early, then the players would get the message.

....I've heard refs say that they take players back an extra yard, so that even if they are in front him, they are still onside. Work that one out.

There was one point where houghton ran between the supposedly square markers and silverwood didn't even penalise them

You certainly struggle to accept anything other then hull bias don't you?

Did you hear the whistle to quantify the hull players stopped as it certainly didn't look that way. If you did hear it you must have the hearing of a dog.

Who knows how far Ah Van would have got or how that passage of play would have ended I was merely pointing out that Silverwood was as bad for both sides instead of this how hard done too Hull are and everybody hates us tripe some fans trot out.

My post was in no way critical of Hull so there's no need for you to get over sensitive so wind your neck back in.
In fact barring one no fan on this thread has bagged Hull only pointing out that bad decisions and offsides went both ways.

Is that simple enough for you?

Maybe that's the problem. The refs are still working in yards, not metres

I haven't seen the game in its entirety, I just watched the 1 hour extended highlights when I got in from work this morning. The commentators aren't wrong in what they are saying, but I think everyone needs to take into account that this was the 3rd game in 8 days. Both teams were tired and it was never going to be a good indicator of anyone's attacking prowess (or the lack of it).

We didn't create an awful lot, but even if you discount a couple of opportunistic efforts by Lineham we created more than them and did deserved to win. The defence was very resilient, which has to be a big plus given the obvious fatigue. I also thought that, despite scooting a lot and playing one out rugby, there was a bit of urgency in our attack which wasn't there against Rovers. We wanted to get the ball played quickly and catch them out. Again, I have only really watched half a game, but that's the impression I got from it.

As for the refs. He got a couple of fairly important calls wrong, but ateotd he just calls it as he sees it. The ball goes in the air, Ah Van and Lineham compete for it, you've got to make a call, and it was a difficult one to make. People need to just accept that the refs don't have superhuman sight. If he's not seen it he's not seen it, that's not a refereeing standard issue, it's just a part of the game. For the most part the game seemed to flow pretty well (given the circumstances at least) and I couldn't argue with most of his calls.

It was an ugly win, but I didn't expect it to be anything else. There are positives to take, there are also a tonne of things to work on. The important thing is we got two more valuable points. We showed pretty good character, but I'm not reading anything into the technical aspects of the performance and my opinion on Radford hasn't changed in either direction.

Possibly so but at least I don't struggle to accept a Hull win.

Except that this was a televised game and he could not possibly have seen clearly what happened so should have asked the VR to confirm. Likewise with the Rankin incident - he should have allowed Rankin to score and then asked the VR to check how the ball came loose. These are simple matters of competence - or more correctly, incompetence.

As for the rest of the game - I have rarely seen the PTB policed so badly nor the 10 metres marked so poorly. He was diabolical on the fundamentals of refereeing a game of RL. One of the worst overall performances I've seen for quite a while.

No more than you struggle to accept even a modicum of positivity.

Oh - and anyone who thinks that Silverwood was equally bad for both sides is free to point out a try that Widnes had incorrectly chalked off or one that we had incorrectly allowed.

He couldn't have gone the screen, it happened on the play prior to the try. The Rankin one, well fair enough. Again I've not seen the entire game, just extended highlights, but the ptb and offsides didn't stand out to me as being particularly bad.

Regarding the Rankin non try,i feel certain players like Sinfield,Tomkin and Briers would have been in the refs face so much to go to the big screen he would have bowed to their wishes which is why they do it(not that its right)maybe we need to more forceful in this regard.

The only thing Wells got wrong was saying we wouldn't trouble Sts.....didn't he see the score from Monday.