But the playing field is perfectly level. It's logic-defying to claim that having the video ref at one game and not others disadvantages anyone.

I'm struggling with the logic on the tip tackle.

"You're staying on the field because you let him go", was I believe the reasoning Bentham offered. Once you've got the player up there, then just letting go and trusting to luck that he won't fall on his head is grossly irresponsible and dangerous IMO.

If you lift a player beyond the horizontal and don't then control the way he comes back down to ground, it should be a straight red for me.

100% Agree

if the kick had been into open space and hall had run from a onside position to collect and score would JJB still have been offside?
i know there could be a arguement that the closeness of JJB could have taken the bradford defenders eyes off the ball but its still not clear but the laws say he has to interfere ' You are offside in Rugby League if you are within the gap maintained between the attacking and defensive sides by the referee or if you interfere with play after being in front of a team mate when they have kicked the ball in open play'

If he had gone downtown from an offside position and was still within the ten then yes.

An offside player should not encroach within 10 metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball and should immediately retire 10 metres from an opponent who secures the ball. However an offside player is placed onside if an opponent touches the ball without retaining it. In the disallowed Hall try it was not clear in real time if the Bradford player had touched the ball. If he didn't touch the ball JJB did not have to retire the 10 metres. But JJB's presence could have influenced the Bradford player to miss taking the ball in the first place so offside was the fair call.

I agree and have stated this in an earlier posting.

If a player is lifted in the tackle in such a way that it is likley that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck then this is a dangerous throw ("the dangerous position") and is misconduct which the referee has the descretion to use the red or yellow card or a caution.

That Bentham regards a sarcastic clap to be a greater offense than a dangerous throw IMO shows he regards his own ego as the more important thing.

[urlhttp://www.therhinos.co.uk/matchdaytv/?play=media&id=14838[/url BM's interesting comments on this issue.

Professional rugby players except the toughness of the sport but regard certain forms of contact to be unacceptable. Bentham's leniency to the dangerous tackle followed by another dangerous tackle on Bailey IMO led to the game boiling over. Again this dangerous tackle on Bailey was not dealt with fairly.

The JP push, when Sinfield dropped the goal, was due to what appeared an attempted tip by Bateman and interference which could have been penalised. And JP was tipped on his head in last years Bradford game.

So with all the intensity and in the heat of the game in the dying minutes of the game on our line this ref chose to sinbin JP when he must have know this could effect the outcome.

It's Bentham, and it's Leeds.

Nothing surprises me any more.

I thought Bentham had a good game overall but a couple of obvious mistakes cost Leeds. He missed obvious touch by the Bulls when Sinfield gathered on their line. Instead of another set he gave a turnover. He was obviously wrong on the Sinfield short drop out. Those two errors cost Leeds possession in two crucial parts of the game. Id like to think when his effort is reviewed this would be pointed out. That said and as is always the case he made fewer errors than the players and coaches who should be good enough to dictate the outcome without relying on a couple of close calls. I agree that showing leniency to players who lift legs is also poor refereeing

I'm surprised if you've never sampled the delights of Batley and Featherstone albeit perhaps some years ago now.




It is alleged (and I would agree) that the burden of proof for scoring tries is often greater in games where the video referee is present. Unless all the teams appear an equal number of times over the course of the season the playing field in this regard isn't a level one, IMO.

When Leeds (for example) were televised by SKY in 13 of 26 regular round fixtures (excluding Magic) as they were in 2010, Sky would need to show on average 3.5 games per week to allow all clubs parity with Leeds' total. I doubt this occurred given 3.5 games per week would be approaching double their scheduled output.

Agreed, no-one need be disadvantaged within any of the 189 individual games but we have two distinct standards of officiating being applied. I'd prefer we went back to one.

I would say that although there are two levels of officiating I don't think that anyone is at an unfair advantage by being on tv. Both teams get access to better decisions but that doesn't mean that is unfair on the rest of the non televised teams

Bentham was poor, a few Leeds players were awful *Ablett and McGuire, it happens.

For the record I thought the Bulls were great and I for one enjoy having them back and competitive, it makes for a better SL.