Jeez it wasn't half as bad as you make out. He made a couple of mistakes but who doesn't? He got far more right than wrong.

At the end of the day it wasn't him that lost a league point for Leeds.

He missed a fairly obvious ball strip, invented a knock on, managed to miss a touch from Kearney that couldn’t really have been clearer, and I thought his reffing of the ruck became entirely random., im sure Bradford fans will remember stuff he got wrong that went Leeds way as well.

The game was a great game, it really was, and I would never say a referee was responsible for a result. I think it was a pretty fair result. But it was a good game in spite of Bentham, not because of him and we should and can expect a higher standard than what he delivered last night.

He had an influence in Leeds losing points, just has the players and the coach did. He did not just make a couple of mistakes, he made lots. It's so easy to forget when the bias kicks in having got the result you wanted. Main issue for me was no consistency, which is absolutely clear watching it.

How was Bentham the only person in the ground to believe that the Bulls should have another six late in the game, the one where the Bulls knocked on. Yes it was corrected by people shouting at him. But how did he come to the thought he had first? It was absolutely clear all around the ground no matter where you was.

Are you suggesting that a player has to stay down injured before a red card is justified? IMO that JJB got up is irrelevant. The tackle is either a spear tackle or not for a red card. However the tackler had used a dangerous technique which could have proved very serious despite leaving go before contact with the ground and in my view deserves a greater penalty that offside or sarcasm.

Correct, had either Bradford player touched the ball Jones-Buchanan would have clearly been offside. The only doubt in my mind is what happens in a case where the ball is not touched and it would appear from the ruling that an offside player is still offside in that situation. Whether I know the intricacies or otherwise of the law is neither here nor there - the video referee however should and his interpretation showed that it doesn't affect the offside ruling in his view - which I'm happy to accept until proven otherwise.



I wouldn't worry too much about the other eleven Bradford players in this situation. Lets try to concentrate on the two closest to the ball and Jones-Buchanan's position in relation to them.



And you still haven't from me.

I'm saying Jones-Buchanan was offside as he was in front of the kicker and encrouched within the ten metre zone between himself and the ball/defenders. At no point was he played onside by the kicker contrary to your earlier statement. I don't think the onside Hall picking up the ball can negate Jones-Buchanan being offside - only the kicker can do that.

I've said all along that this is a slightly unusual case in that the defenders don't touch the ball but that was clear for all to see including the video referee who I presume (until proven otherwise) has made the correct ruling.

THat doesnt sound like a 'simple' rule though does it.
Why?



Again, that doesn’t seem an argument in favour of simplicity. I’m not arguing the decision was wrong, like you I am presuming it right until someone tells me otherwise. Im arguing that whatever the rules is, it clearly isn’t clear, or easy to understand. It clearly allows for confusion and must in some form have large elements of subjectivity in it. That being the case we should look at it again because the outcome wasn’t what it ‘should’ have been. The skill shown to score that try was disallowed because of technical offence that didn’t actually influence the play in any way. That isn’t a good rule. It would have been simple and easy to understand and clear for that try to be given on the basis JJB didn’t influence regardless of any offside/onside debate.

Not that I'm aware of.



Are you suggesting a player should feign injury in order to get a fellow professional sent-off?

It's relevant that he was willing to get on the game. The tackle was a dangerous throw rather than an out and out spear tackle. The spear is usually associated with driving the head of an opponent into the ground and that didn't appear to happen in this case - and Jones-Buchanan playing on supports that view, IMO - hence the earlier comment and contrast that to Cunningham's reaction in '08. You could add Gallagher's reaction too.



It's a tough sport played in the main by tough men - such as Jones-Buchanan. Difficult to have degrees of punishment in live play with so few alternatives to choose from. In the case of a dangerous throw it's either a penalty (just the same as for a technical offside) or a straight red card. The sin-bin I don't think could be used in that particular instance whereas it was very much available to the referee to punish dissent.

I expect the dangerous throw will be reviewed and probably referred on to the disciplinary for a proper investigation and remedy.

It sounds straight forward enough for me to follow.




Is this the winger on the opposite side of the field point? If the rule requires the offside player to remain 10 metres away from the ball/defender closest to the ball in a position to take possession and the attacker isn't - then his relative position to every other defender is a redundant point.




I like the rule as it is. It rewards a disciplined chase but punishes poor execution. Jones-Buchanan (and possibly McGuire) were offside at the kick - they could have stayed outside the 10 metre zone between them and the ball or been played onside by the kicker and then the good kick/chase play of Hall would have been rewarded - but they didn't. So why should they benefit?

Why would you suggest that?

I

It is not relevant as a lack of injury doesn't prove whether the tackle was a spear or dangerous. You could be uninjured in a spear tackle or break a neck from a dangerous tackle. IMO if the technical application of the tackle is dangerous and could cause serious injury whether intentional or not then a red or yellow card should be used. The players and the referees have a duty of care and in a tough contact sport like RL it is essential that players do not cross boundaries.



If the sin bin is used for dissent then it certainly should be used for dangerous play. In this game the dangerous tackle on JJB and the Scuton head clash were both a result of dangerous technique and the attitude of the ref to both caused some afters from the players which had an direct impact on the result.



I would expect the same.

So simple that you admit you don’t actually know if it was correct or not?

But you don’t know that is the rule, and neither do I. Nor do you know WHEN he needs to be in that position.

Why should who benefit? Why should a dummy runner benefit from one of his team mates kicking the ball and one of his onside team-mates regains possession and puts the ball over the try-line?

Think that's a fair way to sum it up.

Most entertaining game I've seen this year. A few referees would have spoiled it, don't think he was brilliant but I think it wouldn't have been the contest it was with a child/Roby/hicks