Having only just had a chance to have a look at the replay, I've got to say that Hull have a reason to be upset.
But, it's only Hull so no worries.

saw it on sky sports news last night, definately not forward

The replay merely demonstrates why video refs should not make judgements on forward passes. From the tv gantry, there is an argument that it was a flat pass. From where I was stood, level with the 20 m line, it was as clear as day.

I concede that most weekends would see passes like that go unpunished, and that Silverwood is not known for his forward pass spotting ability. However, on this occasion he was correct. I would have been knobbed off if he had allowed it, but not in the least bit surprised.

And there is our argument in a nutshell. Silverwood and others don't see half the passes that fans see, yet all of sudden he has 20/20 vision and sees one at a crucial part of the game.

The inconsistency of the reffing is appalling as some teams (Salford vi Us in the cup, Leeds etc) get away with murder. I wonder, if Keiron Cunningham had passed it to Raynor, whether it would have been called forward



Anyway, all water under the bridge now

and you have to admit it was a decent piece of play from us (for once)

1st Hull fan on here to admit it was a forward pass. Well done mate.

I agree with you, TV angles do make things appear different.
Tansey's try looked offside from one camera looking along the line, the camera on the other side of the pitch made it look like he was onside, which he was.
Why we can't invest in some similar technology to Hawk Eye in tennis is beyond me when margins are so tight.

From the view I had it was flat. Hall's hands were pointing backwards and the ref was about 2 metres behind the play.

You don't get me that easily

As has been said many times, the fact the ball may have travelled forward in relation to the pitch does not make it a forward pass.

The AUP clearly states.

1.4. Messages intended to destroy threads or to only increase post counts are prohibited

You must have repeated the above 10 times

Maybe when some you "hard of understanding" types get the point, he'll be able to have a rest. You'll be telling me Rovers are in vigorous financial health next.

why, your doing a cracking job

agreed mate!!

You do realise even Rovers fans think you're an obsessed to$$er!

The key word is "defender". He was playing at the ball by running in front of the attacker and shielding it. Nothing wrong with it.



I aren't debating the result, I'm debating the forward pass decision. Some people are linking the two, but I'm not. It was not a forward pass, end of.

Sir Silverwood says it was and that is all that matters!( by the way,it wasn`t).

Thankyou Robo you finally admitted it was FORWARD

Another example of how much of an imbecile you continue to prove you are.

Not only does he say "may", but the fact that he also says "in relation to the pitch" afterwards means that you STILL don't understand the rules of the game your "team" play in

In relation to the result, you are quite right. It is all that matters.

Doesn't mean I still won't argue the toss about it, it's my God given right as a fan!

You all know it was forward your just clutching at straws, at least a metre, it was worse than the Salford one against you to be honest.

cheeky charlie maybe you should change you sig to 24 - 18 THANKYOU SILVERWOOD

And maybe you should remove that traffic sign off fantasy island your using as an avatar

Cory69 maybe you should change your avatar to.....





























.....................................or to save doing it twice...... ....

The pass was adjudged to be forward, the match has ended, leave it and move on.

It's not like you just lost in a cup final is it

True,nowt we can do about it now.




















Still rankles though.