yes, the players indiscipline!if peacock hadn't gone after bateman you probably would have won,but lets blame the ref shall we instead?

unintentionally.
once he realised where the tackle was going he released him,by then momentum had taken him beyond horizontal, it was dangerous yes but not malicious and whitehead let him go as soon as he realised he'd messed up.after that nothing could stop jjb from turning over.

I thought there were some poor calls, and we did seem to be on the wrong end of a few of them, at inconvenient times. The turnover after Kearney clearly and obviously touched it was unacceptable, im not not sure that the Hall try wasn’t a huge mistake, if it wasn’t, then we should look at the rules again because JJB had nothing at all to do with that try being scored, Sinfield drop out being given as a knock on was wrong but these things happen. There were a few bits and bobs and Bentham seemed to lose a bit of control and start pinging things at random, he seemed to swing from letting things go to clamping down on things without warning. The spear tackle wasn’t malicious, but that isn’t really relevant. Whitehead has a duty of care and he lost control of that tackle. The fact JJB wasn’t injured was luck not judgement. We aren’t strict on spear tackle because it is nasty, it is banned because it is dangerous and that tackle was dangerous regardless of intent. I would hope Benthams bosses aren’t happy with that performance, some of those decisions weren’t the standard of the quality we should expect. But our indiscipline was more to blame.

We should have been able to win in spite of that though, but it was a really really good game and enjoyed it. A bit of controversy is part of the game isn’t it?

Jones-Buchanan was in front of the kicker and stayed within the ten. That he may or may not have had an influence on proceedings is unclear but do we really want to introduce even more subjective material in to the debate.

Stay onside at the kick or if you're in front stay outside the ten or wait for the kicker to run past you to play you onside.

Let's not reward poor (or potentially worse - cynical) play.

I think the only decision Bentham got wrong was the Sinfield 'knock on'. Other than that he was fine. If Leeds fans should blame anyone for their team not winning this game, they should blame Peacock for costing his team a drop goal, and for getting himself sin-binned towards the end of the game.

I have no problems with the ref in general last night. The knock on was the only one he hat wrong against us. I didn't think Scruton was high on Bailey. He want in for the big hit and they clashed heads. His arms were around the shoulders. At the time I thought the spear tackle didn't warrant a red and when I got back and watched the incident again I was happy with Benthams reasoning on it.

I have seen many fans slating Bailey down tonight though but I for one don't see what he did wrong? When Whitehead did the spear he ran in but every forward from any team would be expected to do that. Peacock and Delaney were also straight in but no one mentions them. Then he gets slated because Scrutin came off second best so obviously Bailey is a thug and did something wrong. Fans and officials need to get a grip sometimes because Bailey, like Morley did in Australia, gets an unfair rap because of his past underscores sins and the fact he can be a wind up merchant.

I saw one comment on another website last night saying "surely Leeds fans must see Bailey does them more harm than good after tonight". That left me baffled as to what they actually see when he is involved in a play.

But he got all the penalties against Bradford spot on....

Correct, regardless of whether he had an effect on play, he was offside and only a few metres away from Kearney when he muffed it. The call was right. I was explaining to people around me who looked bemused at the replays before the desision was made.

Whinos is a very apt description of the Leeds faithful.

Yes.

Because, in that situation, who was JJB within the ‘ten’ of? Kearney didn’t touch the ball so was he the designated player to be within the ten of? Or was it Whitehead (?) who made the tackle on Hall in the end? Neither of those players touched the ball so we are already in confusion of where what we are judging against. Also at what point are we judging this? JJB was closer to Kearney when the ball was kicked than he was when Kearney made his play at the ball (which he missed) so when did JJB need to be more than 10metres away from Kearney, or Whitehead whichever we end up judging it against?

JJB did wait for the kicker to go past him, and the kicker eventually did. This is another reason the current rules arent clear because at the point it was kicked JJB was ahead of the kicker, and the point Kearney played and missed at he was, at the point Hall regathered i would say it was pretty close and when Hall scored I think Moon was the closest player to him.

Im all for simplifying the rules, but in this case I think that subjective judgement would be simpler. If JJB involves himself in the play, even to the point of just challenging for the ball he is obviously offside, if he doesn’t, he isn’t.

No, as I said seemed to begin to ping players at random, especially around the ruck. Bradford players were getting away with some pretty obvious stuff, then being pinged for some stuff which left you wondering where on earth it had come from.

Bailey had a really really good game. Possibly our best forward last night.

My question was, at what point does Kearney become the player JJB needed to be 10 meters away from? Why is he the designated point and not any of the other players who were also not touching the ball and at what point did he need to be ten metres away from him? When he played and missed at the ball the first time? Or when he played and missed it the second time? Why was it Kearney and not whitehead (?) who was literally right behind him when he missed the ball a second time and going for it?

Watched the game last night and left Headingley feeling that I had watched a really good entertaining match.

Felt bit hard done to by the Ref but watched it this morning on Sky, Bentham had a good game just made a few mistakes like we all do.

The tackle on JJB was so fast and I felt at the ground it's just one of them things nothing seemed nasty about it.

The niggling thing during the match was Bradfords last try came about with Sammut pushing Danny as he played the ball. The same thing cost us a drop goal but cost Bradford nothing.

The second Leeds try that was disallowed was correct but harsh.

More games like that please ......

Jones-Buchanan was in front of the kicker and within ten metres of both those players at the point they were in a position to collect the ball. They clearly didn't but had either the Bradford players touched the ball Jones-Buchanan was within the ten and offside at that point as the kicker had not advanced beyond him to play him onside. The video referee (Ian Smith) didn't appear to think whether the ball was touched by a Bradford player at that point made a difference to the ruling - I have to defer to his knowledge of the laws of the game.



Sorry but this is plainly an inaccurate statement, IMO. Moon at no point prior to Hall planting the ball advanced beyond Jones-Buchanan.



I disagree. The rule is simple at present but what you propose appears to introduce more subjectivity. The rule is fine as it is. If you're in front of the kicker stay outside the ten metre zone between you and the ball unless the kicker advances ahead of your position or until an opposing player touches the ball - then you're onside.