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

I'd hope we can all agree it was confusing and trust the RFL will learn from this avoidable debacle and introduce some clarity in future rulings via the big screen.

Something like GET THAT IN TO YA or DID YOU SEE THAT or GET UP YOU SOFTCOCK - SCRUM TO LEEDS

Look you are clearly struggling with this, regardless of how straightforward it is.

Don't worry about it - I am sure there will be actions to clarify the terminology going forward and thus avoid any future confusion.

Are you sitting in your chair, with a smug look on your face reading out your posts in a condescending voice? Yep, thought so.

I think it is fairly obvious. In any try scoring situation the side scoring the try should be deemed to be the attacking team. In the same way you think it's obvious so do I.

Leeds were defending when the incident the VR was asked to adjudicate on!

The correct restart of play from that incident is scrum defence.

Leeds never became the attacking team in that phase of play, because of the offences (Wire knock on, Leeds knock on/potential offside).

The double knock on occurred with Leeds defending - play ends and the decision and terminology is correct.

I'm sure if you look through history you'll find incidents where it has happened differently to how you describe.

This is a pointless argument anyway - the fact is the decision and outcome was the right one.

From memory - Cas v Leeds this year if anyone has the game on tape. Leeds knock on in an attempted tackle and from that score a try.

Video ref decision = scrum defence.

No - Andy is right.

The VR was NOT asked to adjudicate the incident where the ball came loose, the VR was asked to adjudicate over the try, this means that Leeds were the attacking side. The VR referred to the incident where the ball came loose to see if the try could be given. At the point the incident took place Leeds were the defending side BUT as Leeds were the last team to be in attack then they MUST have been the attacking side.

Simples.

I wouldn't bother. You'll only be sneered at and told you are wrong repeatedly. I hope someone has that Cas game still to back me up as I'm starting to doubt myself now!

How can I explain it in any simpler terms?

Leeds were not legally in posession - they were the defending team - they were not "the last team in attack" - the game, as correctly adjudicated by the VR, had stopped by then.

Why is it so hard to follow?

If memory serves me right, in the other code, their video ref refers to the teams by the colours of their shirt when he gives the decision verbally to the on field ref. So, scrum pink would have been the call yesterday.

Tell me where I have sneered at you or been smug, as you have put it.

I have tried to expain the whys and wherefores, but you don't want to, or are incapable of listening.

But hey, forget it.

Well, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, you will see the terminology changed in the near future, to help remove the unnecessary confusion.

You've taken a high and mighty "I'm right and you're wrong" view throughout. You have repeatedly told me I am incapable of understanding something simple.

It's not that I don't understand - I just think you're wrong and that many times the video ref will have referred to teams the opposite way to how you claim to be so obvious.

One example being Cas v Leeds earlier this year. I've looked at the highlights package on youtube but it wasn't in there. I hope someone has the match in full.