Huddersfield won because they adapted to the conditions better and used appropriate tactics for those conditions. We contined to do the same things throughout the game and continued to get the same result!

I just have a niggling suspicion that the game would have been different had it been televised, for no other reason than there would have been a video referee who would probably have been invited to judge many of the tries scored/disallowed last night.

The first 4 Huddersfield tries may have been judged to have an offside player heavily involved in the build up or scoring? Did Watkins ground the ball? Was he short?

All these decisions early in a game change the flow of it.

I'm not saying Hudds players were DEFINITELY offside, but the referee would have had the option to check. Also, there would have been more camera angles than Leeds' own feed.

Aww bless! What's up grumpy? Your 'farmers' swelled up? We are having our annual banter with the Fartown fans who come on here after they win and we joust for a bit. It's all done in jest. We can't all be serious, know-everythings like you otherwise it'd be a forum full of Jeffs and no one wants that. You obviously have a high opinion of yourself. However, it's a rugby forum and no one cares. You've got some "issues" so I'll leave you to work on them! Tschuss!

The NRL introduced the "third man" ruling a few years ago. Basically if two guys start belting each other, then there'll be a penalty one way or the other (usually for the original offence), but if a third player comes running in swinging, its they that face the biggest penalties. IIRC the idea was to prevent mass brawls, which can be a bit ugly.

What helped was the fact that the NRL made it clear to everyone how they were going to rule on these things, so fans and players alike know what to expect.