Hear hear

The RFL can kiss

yea thats just you

do it then , it just shows you care as much about cas at the present board do.

we need a siege mentality not this ra ra e

bye, ive banned mesen from this crap

Which, in general go to the attacking team as benefit of the doubt.

The problem with the illegal play the ball is that if a ref decides to disallow a try, which apart from that one part was a good score, then we have to go back to insisting that a PTB is struck with the boot. We cannot have a rule that allows illegal PTB's to be overlooked apart from when one leads to a try, that would be ridiculous.

No it wouldn't because Bentham asked for it to be checked, and in the rule book it was an illegal play the ball so if the ref asked for it checking and it's clearly an illegal play the ball, it should be no try penalty defence.

Surely all Saturday night proved was that either you need Video Replays at all games to enable a level playing field.

Based on the contraversial tries alone without the VR none of them would have been given.

1. If Bentham thought the play the ball was played incorrectly without the VR would he have penalised HKR? - Actually what annoy's me most of all with this is if you watch the game you can blatantly here Bentham shouting at goldy to play the ball with his foot!
2. Ainscough - This wouldn't have been given anyway!
3. Watts - This most certainly wouldn't have been given.

The deciding factor is as a sport do the clubs/RFL have to dig deep to enable VR at all games, or should they just shut up whinging and get on with it knowing that this will happen, when only two games a week (three if Catalan are at home) have VR, or should we do away full stop.

slightly O/T I personally don't think the officating at matches has improved greatly since they went full time!

tbh, I was under the impression we had done: but I suspect its like many 'tightening up' interpretations: we insisted on it for a bit, then let it go again …

To me, if Watts is allowed to drop the ball forward and be awarded a try just because they think he grounded it, then what is stopping an attacker 3 meters out from throwing the ball over the heads of the defence and then grounding it as it comes down. half a meter forward, 3 meters forward who cares? Isn't this the same thing? Its the most ridiculous try since George Mann scored for saints by heading the ball out of his own hands and diving on it over the try line!

That one actually caused a change to be made to the rules, outlawing that particular practice. It was quite a simple one for me though. A player loses control of the ball and is in a situation where he cannot possibly regain full control of it. When the ball comes into contact with the ground, that completes the knock-on. I'm pretty sure anybody would agree that in the field of play that's would've been given as a knock-on.

For what it's worth I don't think we got the rub, but the players shouldn't have let that get them down. Neither should we have dropped so much ball in their 20m area during the game, or defended their kicks so poorly in our own in-goal area.

The last pass for one of Ainscough's tries in the second half looked a bit suspect on the replay; but I was bang in line with the one in the first half and it was flat. Also with try where people have claimed Cas obstructed - the HKR player tackled the dummy runner which is a defensive mistake and therefore not an obstruction.

If (as somebody claimed earlier) incorrect play the balls are rife in SL at the moment (there was no foot-ball contact in the last PTB before KR's 1st and 4th tries) then overlooking them in VR decisions is not the way to resolve the issue. The message that has now been sent to all players in the game though is that it's not necessary to even attempt to play the ball correctly.

Got to agree Murells try should not have stood 100% Watts simply stepped over the ball, the rules were changed from having to put your foot on the ball to attempting to put your foot on the ball if i recall correctly. Either way for me no effort was made at all to get his foot anywhere near the ball. Watts try was very contentious but much more of a 50/50 personally I wouldn't have given it but I can understand why it was given, clearly its not the same as throwing the ball forward and then regathering, he fumbled the ball and is therefore entitled to make an attempt to regather it/ground it, its a bit like scoring from a kick, how many times have we seen a try being given with just a finger nail getting to the ball, if the kick was in field and a player brushed it with his hand and it carried on rolling then a knock on would be given. As I've said in another thread these things generally even themselves out over the course of a season and they weren't the reason you lost, that was down to your ball control.

Not really. You are allowed to kick the ball forward. You can't drop it forward. In the final 30 seconds of the game, Sarge knocked on by trying to gather up a ball but in bringing into his body the ball went forward and so quite rightly it was a knock on. If he had done this over the line, it would have been a try! Where is the consistancy in that?

if you drop the ball forward and regather it before it hits the floor then its fair game, watts got his hand to the ball before it hit the ground but as i said i dont believe he had control over it so i wouldnt have given the try but i can also understand why it was given. the issue isnt the kicking the ball or dropping it forward its the regaining of control, its one thing getting your hand to the ball and stopping it ie full control and another just brushing it with your finger tips

Cas lost because they have the worst discipline & ball control of any SL team I can remember. They also have a number of very average forwards, it's difficult to do much about the latter. Jones & Higgins giving away penalties while having HKR contained in their own half were the biggest crimes of the night, not refereeing decisions. HKR got on our line by repeated amateurishness from supposed full time professionals.