Clearly I don't know how to post quotes! Serves me right for being a clever clogs.

These type of professional obstructions happen in most games you'll ever watch. My point is they are rarely penalised, hence why I consider the penalty against Briers yesterday as harsh. Leeds got lucky.


Only the one-eyed or blinkered would consider it as such.


It most definitely wasn't a knock on.

Warrington fan is he?

Well all I can say to that is this Newton fella would have known differently if he'd ever bothered to stand next to me on't terrace. Maybe it would have saved him making such an a[irs[/ie of himself.

Well I didn't think it was confusing, but given that you read it differently, it clearly is.

This is not to say that you are wrong, which you are, simply that it has caused confusion.

Even though I understood the ruling without any problem, I agree it can be confusing and perhaps they can use some better terminology in future??

I know "Scrum Leeds" - how hard can it be????

You're so sure I am wrong are you?

The video referee was asked to decide whether Leeds had scored a try. Leeds in the process of scoring that try would have been the attacking team. I'm pretty sure any time the video ref is judging a try the team scoring are deemed to be the attacking team.

Forgive me for thinking you might be wrong.

At the point of "the incident" which the VR was asked to look at, Wire was attacking, Leeds defending.

The result of the VR adjudicating on the incident is Wire knock-on (no advantage to be taken) = scrum defense.

Silverwood also asked if there was anything in the tackle, suspecting a penalty to Wire.

Regardless of all that the video referee is trying to determine whether Leeds have scored a try and Leeds are therefore the attacking team.

Silverwood and the players from their reactions thought that meant the scrum was a Warrington one as well.

Clearly you have misunderstood the ruling, so there is indeed confusion.

Why take it as a dig at you? It's not.

I imagine there may be some change to the terminology shortly, to avoid similar confusion in the future.

I'm not taking it as a dig.

I think you're wrong.

I think it's pretty simple to understand and you're struggling.

I KNOW I am right!

The decision is not a matter of opinion; not a point of discussion; not open to interpretation.

The VR gave the CORRECT decision. Scrum defence - a scrum to Leeds.

I didn't think it was confusing, but clearly it is.

At the time of the incident, Leeds were the defending team.

What makes you so sure you are right when a referee who has clearly performed that role, was unsure.

In all cases I've seen before, regardless of how the ball came to them, the team in the process of scoring were considered to be the attacking team. It would be mad to view it any other way