They were two totally different tackles.

The Burrow one saw Ferres stick his hand between Burrow's legs and deliberately up-end him, beyond the horizontal; he knew he had done wrong, he tried to correct his error but it was too late - his face told the story.

McGoldrick went over through a combination of his own momentum in the tackle and subsequent thrashing around like a salmon, either in an attempt to milk a penalty or to get up quickly; the tackling player had very little to do with it.

HTH.

So how bad does that make Cas? I agree that Leeds were awful, but still good enough to beat the Soap Dodgers.

You mean the one when McGoldrick flipped over Kylie who was on all fours at the time? It's a little different to deliberately placing the hands between the legs and lifting.

As already said, very different situations. That said, I'd probably as soon not see ones like the Burrow one penalised. The rules are clear, so it had to be a penalty, but for me if the tackler realises the error and puts him down nicely, do we really need a penalty? I know it's dangerous, but so are most aspects of the game. In some ways, wouldn't it be good if the tackler was given more incentive to rectify the situation before any harm was done. I seriously doubt that Ferres had any intention of dumping the player on his head/neck.

I agree,I am not condoning any tackle that puts a player in danger,just more consistency on the way they are managed by match officials.

Here we are again talking about a game where an official has had a bearing on the outcome. McDermott said that it didn't make any difference what stage of the game it was, a penalty is a penalty... fair enough.

For all those who still have the match recorded, look at the play the ball when we were putting our selves in position for the drop goal (where Danny Orr runs it in) I think it's the 2nd play the ball after the scrum. See how square the markers are, penalty every day of the week? YES / Is ref going to win the game for Cas in front of the posts? NO / Did the ref bottle what was a blatant penalty decision? YOU BET HE DID. I didn't notice this at first due to the fact the defenders where all rushing about, but I encourage you to watch it and see for yourselves. I have never seen a ref run off the field as quickly in my life. If anyone has got the League Express, there is a picture of Sinfield after he struck the ball.... the ref is already on his bike

Oh and yes....... Am I bitter and is it sour grapes??????? You bet it is.

The attacking team has the right to play the ball as quick as they can. If the markers are not square PENALTY. It's like in football, if a player get's a slight nudge in the area and goes down it's not a penalty, but anywhere else on the field it's a free kick. If were we running the ball out from our 25 and it happened, it would have been given. The fact that it was in front of the posts with 15 seconds to go made all the difference. We had our chance and blew it, but you are looking for consistency in how the game is run and at the moment we are not getting it.

What nonsense. Ref's only penalise players for not being square where they go on to make a tackle/interfere with play (and obviously sometimes a hooker will exploit this and run straight at the player).

If ref's did what your suggesting and blew every time a marker isn't square we'd have a penalty every time a team got a quick play the ball - do you really want see an extra 20 penalties per match??? (Maybe you should go and watch Yawnion instead)

So every time a player breaks a law of the game it shouldn't be penalised?

A player who isn't square has not broken the laws of the game so shouldn't be penalised. (He's technically "out of play"icon_wink.gif

A player who isn't square and then makes a tackle has broken the laws of the game and should be penalised.

Forcing the ball carrier to change direction or avoid the player not square is also breaking a law of the game, in fact the same one you just used.

Eh? If you're not square the ball carrier can run into you and he get's a penalty no-one is forcing him to avoid you.

Here you go here's the letter of the law intention is required....

[iRetire at play-the-ball (g) players of the side not in possession other than the player taking part in the play-the-ball and the acting half back are out of play if they fail to retire ten (10) metres from the point at which the ball is played or to their own goal lines. Players of the side in possession other than the player taking part in the play-the-ball and the acting halfback must retire behind their players involved in the play-the-ball or to their own goal line.

(h) having retired the distance prescribed in the preceding paragraph no player of the team not in possession may advance until the ball has cleared the ruck. A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.

Penalise intentional interference 10.(g) If the ball is played quickly, all players will not necessarily have time to retire the prescribed distance. They should be penalised only if they intentionally interfere with play – either actively or passively.
[/i

From rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/11_tackle_and_playtheballrl

So it IS a penalty if the hooker decided to step around the not square marker - he is passively interfering in the play there.

Well I've rewatched the game on tv and consider the ref did a pretty good job. There are one or two slightly contentious decisions but nothing I'd say he got blatantly wrong.

The 2 Leeds 'tries' disallowed for forward passes in the 1st half were marginal at best. On another day both might be given and you can bet had it been Cas scoring the tries most Cas fans would have been upset with em being ruled off.

The tackle on McGuire at the end was slightly high and justified a penalty though it was a cruel way to lose. But then we should have won the game in 80 minutes and blew it by a couple of silly errors most notably Ben Davies forward pass that gave Leeds the great field position from which they scored their equalising try.

One official who I thought did an outstanding job was the blonde haired linesman. Unlike the majority of linesman who try their best to be invisible he assisted the referee with some very good decisions but without trying to become the centre of attention. He looked suspiciously like the guy who has refereed a few games this season - which might explain his confidence to make a decision as a linesman.