Think it was a Cas game actually. Was discussed as a scenario at refs training. Subsequently decided that attack/defense is determined at the point at which the play can no longer develop legitimately. Hence the Wembley call was correct. Previous calls are not necessarily incorrect...just different. We never criticise!

It's confusing to the people that matter though - the fans. Team names should be used very soon.

I was at the game and thought Briers initially knocked on,managed to watch the game last night and thought it was a knock on. Only after the game when they showed the white and red line it clearly shows it went backwards..... how many titles and wcc have Leeds won by wrong decisions?????? Get over it, there will be plenty more before we all die

Was it the one on the 2nd March 2012? What was the circumstance of the incident in question and what was the on screen message from the video referee - 'scrum attack' or 'scrum defence' - and is your view that the call was correct or incorrect?

Or given your next passage, is your view that the call was correct irrespective of the actual words used on the screen?

As it was a case study I imagine you'll have notes or if not still be able to re-collect some of the detail. I'll have a look anyway, once you've confirmed the game to see if there were any video rulings I didn't understand.

Not sure it will add anything over and above the more recent example I've detailed from the Leeds V Hull game in July which presented an effective doppelganger situation to the one on Saturday that caused the confusion.



Illogical.

Unless there has been a change in the instructions given to video referees between the 6th July 2012 and the 25th August 2012 both Ian Smith and Phil Bentham cannot both be correct when their on-screen restart messages are exact polar opposites.

Blimey, I'll have my secretary pull the minutes!

In both games the DECISION was correct.

We are discussing the re-start terminology used onscreen. Following the Cas game, it was decided to be termed as I have described, hence Bentham was correct. Whilst the other game, did it differently, it wasn't wrong at the time. It would be now.

We don't criticise our MO's.

Please do as it would help to know which incident has caused this confusing change to be made. A referee looking and sounding nonplussed by a colleague's decision while in front of the games biggest domestic TV audience is not the look I imagine the RFL are after at a major showpiece event.




Who is we in this instance?

If both Ian Smith and Phil Bentham were correct there must have been a change in the instructions given to video referees sometime between the 6th July and the 25th August.

When was this change made? Was the change publicised? Did Richard Silverwood's copy get lost in the post?

When the change was made did no-one think, why are we even using scrum attack or scrum defence, why not just use scrum <insert relevant team name> to indicate which team had the head and feed.

I never realised you had to make life this hard when you're a referee.

I don't agree with not criticising. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. It's what makes improvements.

I personally was under the illusion that the team who scored the try were the attacking team (which was Leeds in this example). In replays where both teams are attacking at some point, it's just confusing. I don't see why they don't just have the team names. It's just as easy, and yet so much clearer to the supporters.

Its probably a software thing

Was stood outside St. Joseph Social Club in Wembley on Saturday and spotted a load of young lads in Nottingham Outlaws shirts - don't suppose you were with them?

Shocking decision. A huge momentum changer as agreed by all the pundits.

Both the Briers opbstruction and his knock on from the drop out were, IMO, technically correct but the sort of decision not given 9 times out of 10.

On the Leuluai knock on after demolishing Hodgson (legally - different to the Moa non-tackle in that Leuluai made contact with Hodgson's shoulder, and used his arms properly) - I'm not convinced at all that Kylie made any deliberate attempt to play at the ball (only he knows for sure), so no knock-on for me. Is Delaney still offside if the ball has just hit Kylie accidentally?

Anyway, all academic points. Wire were comfortably the better side and fully deserved to win.

Actually, the decision I found most annoying was the one when Wire were penalised for putting Ablett (I think) in touch about 3 nanoseconds and no change of momentum after the call of held. Didn't think he should have called held to begin with, given that he did, there was no chance the tackle was going to stop or that the tacklers would have heard him. Couldn't/shouldn't he therefore have brought it back for the play the ball where he called held?

Thought the officials between them were pretty poor in general, Wire copped a couple of duff calls. We probably copped a few more, which is likely to be because we were the side under pressure more of the time.

Were they in kit (white shirts, with green and blue chevron) or in blue and orange t-shirts.

The lads in shirts were out under 14s, and we did catch up with them at one point. The t-shirts were the mens team, who I was with.

Simple answer to both questions posed in terms of try/no try and knock on/play on are this. You've got 6 tackles to attack/defend with, aim up and get on with it. It was something Andrew Johns said the other week when dismissing the idea of the 'captains challenge' being trialed in Austraila.

Both decisions though, were correct - as the VR, and the replays clearly demonstrated.

Leeds had a set of 6 within 20 metres of Warrington's line after the Hodgson knock on. They didn't score from it - Ablett put into touch from a Hall knock back?

From the Briers 'knock on' didn't Warrington force a further drop out? I can't remember, but if we scored it was on the 6th tackle and exploited poor defensive decision making to create the overlap for Riley to go in, then Atkins after. Hodgson scored from the uncertainty created by the previous two.

The Paul Wood punch - Ablett hit out first but not as badly - or clearly as Wood. Correct decision made on the pitch, and one that would have been made in any other game. Wood likely to cop a deserved ban.

They were just kids in their team shirts by the looks of it.

FYI......yes. It doesnt matter if its intentional or accidental. A point in fact the Warrington try in 2010 when the ball bounced of the Warrington player's backside and we went the length of the field in a couple of tackles. That WAS one the officials got wrong.