Did we deserve to win the game?

Simple answer is no, so we can't complain

Taken from Facebookhttps://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1506808_704072116314330_3605144593618118847_n.jpg?oh

I thought the markers had to be behind each other not side-by-side.

That's my understanding. Perhaps the video referee thinks different.

If the ref had blown for not square we'd have had a 400 page 'Hardaker's voluntary tackle' thread. They're never called but it looked like one to me.

Off topic

how empty was Carnegie?!

Looks not square to me, but in my eyes if he didn't get involved with the event then he's not gained an advantage. Is it a case when you are offside its a penalty whether you are involved or not?

Yes, penalty regardless of involvement.

What exactly is the video ref for?

Maybe it's that "kick to touch on the last" play Leeds constantly do when they're in the lead. It's so negative. You blew Cas away in the first few minutes of the CCF, then employed this tactic through the rest of the game. I said at the time it would eventually come back to bite them in the backside. Didn't that day, but has in the SL a few times.

Leeds can be one of the most exciting teams when they throw the ball around. It must be frustrating as hell to see them play so negatively straight after some great play.

Video ref cannot rule on such events as being square and forward passes to be fair at the speed at which this happened not many if any refs would call this one.

Bottom line is a top team or top player would have gathered the ball made a couple of metres and then your kicker would have hoofed it out of play with a minute to go

Briscoe was probably the least reliable player on the pitch to gather that ball end of

I am not sure Catalan deserved a win but you can guarantee Giants won't make a mistake next week

You cannot realistically use the vr to call on onside offside at the play the ball.
The rule is 10m from the play the ball. Not be back with the ref. Refs sometimes go further back than 10m to make their job easier.
Fields are also marked up differently and are varying lengths. So you would need an accurate 10m graphic to start to even contemplate doing this.
This type of call, just like forward passes should be left to the referees call

Ref's don't give penalties for not being square unless there is involvement.

How many times do you see a not square marker, retreating back to the ten yard line as a clever hooker runs straight at them. The fans go wild but the ref never blows as the hooker can use the not square marker as an effective Sheppard.

You can watch a 1000 matches and unless the player not square at the play the ball touches the man, it's never a penalty.

In the end if 13 had picked up the ball and ran forwards it would have been a penalty, unless the player backed off to to the 10m's

Sometimes you can physically see the dummy half running with their hands on the markers chest, making it obvious that there is contact, but the ref will not blow unless the marker tackles.

Not square happens dozens and dozens of times throughout a game and the ref ignores it, quite often someone will be cleary not square, he won't immediatly get involved but there might be an inside ball and the play comes back at him, he tackles and nothing.

If you watch for it, it happens all the time. I think it's clucthing at supreme straws to call foul on that one.

Yes they do !!! and if Sinfield opts to take the tackle I believe we would have got a penalty and game over but we didnt deserve to win IMHO.

Henderson outplayed both our half backs and their pack refused to give in. Well Done Dragons.

Although I am a bit worried if they get to the GF..... maybe we could support them for that night ????

Aren't we playing to a different rule this year? Markers can not be square at the ptb, get themselves square after the ptb (in the position they should have been when it took place) then get involved in play again before they have retreated 10 metres? If that's right then no offence occurred because neither got involved in the play that led to the try.

A clear penalty never really attempted to get square and should have been spotted by Bentham, I still think given the importance if the play he should have gone to the Video Ref for the onside decision which is what the RL decided they'd do after the Ganson / Tansey incident at the Millennium. If you freeze the play at the PTB you find not only are they not square Williams is a yard in front of the ref and Henderson a yard in front of him. At any other point in the game the ref blows for offside and the balls punted thirty yards up the pitch. All that said our play was stupid with one minute twenty seconds on the clock you take the ball up from dummy half, four more play and a kick down field and it's game won