A run of 50/50 calls went against us which appears harsh but when viewed individually are simply judgement calls. On the penalty try and the Delaney sin binning I thought the calls were correct. If Ganson saw Whitehead knock on in the run up to Jones Bishop 2nd try he has to call it and Silverwood spent so long looking at Walkers knock on that there was definitely a case for awarding it but again, the ball appeared to touch his elbow and so one can see why it was chalked off. Buderus is off side for Leualai's try but Silverwood didn't rewind the tape far enough to watch the whole play which is poor but more a twist of fate than a 'howler'.

One clear mistake I thought Ganson made was in not going to the video ref when Jones Bishop made a brilliant and totally legal tackle on Walker over the line. The ball came free and Raynor touched down. On 2 viewings it looked like Jones Bishop made a play at the ball and pulled it loose. It could be argued that Walker didn't have control but that's not the point. Raynor touched down and claimed the try. Why did Ganson not refer this decision to the video referee as the ball came loose 'in the tackle' and therefore there was some doubt as to what caused it? Ganson is some metres behind the play and has no view of the ball. Whether the try was awarded is irrelevant. By virtue of the circumstances such a case should have been referred. This is very poor from a full time official with a history of making crucial errors by not referring close calls to the video referee.

This error apart I feel we were a touch unlucky rather than 'robbed'.

Personally I hope Raynor is injured & never walks again. I mean tackling a player without the ball, disgusting.

Class?

If yours was a penalty try at the end how did the buklls not get one when their player was takled without the ball on your try line? Fair enough he god sin binned but should have been given as it was a try all the way.

If you'd have offered me a 4 point loss before the weekend I'd have probably taken it, but the fact that we conceded a 16 point lead really hurts. It shouldn't have happened. People can try to blame the ref all they want, but we gave away too much field position with poor ball control and penalties.

IMO the biggest difference between the teams is that Leeds have more players capable of creating a moment of magic. That Watkins- Jones-Bishop partnership could be a thorn in our side for years to come!!

The main positives for me are that we were massively improved on last year, we had plenty up our sleeves in attack, and Elliott was all over the field. I'd have him at 13 every week and put Langley in the second row. He is something special.

We shouldn't even be talking about decisions and calls.

The final decision seemed fair enough to me, but even if it had been debatable, it's a singularly unattractive thing to make a case based on what was a 100% clear professional foul designed to prevent any chance of a score.

We should be concentrating on the main points, which seem to me to be on the one hand, the Bulls repeatedly pressing the self-destruct buttonto keep Leeds in a game they ought to have been absolutely buried in. And nothing more ridiculous than the sequence from us in possession in their 20, seeking what would surely even then have been the killer score, that went:
Lynch knock on; Sibbitt pen; Sibbit pen; Diskin pen; Leeds try. That was the daddy, but what about kicking out on the full, failing to find touch with a penalty, and contriving to turn a wind-down-the-half-situation into a penalty under the posts to opponents. The fact is, we both crucified Leeds, but also repeatedly let them back off the cross. And we can blame nobody but ourselves for these repeated bloopers.

Incidentally Walker's knock-on wasn't in that category, it was bloody unlucky, but to those who say it wasn't obvious, well no - until you got the correct angle. But once you see that, there actually isn't any doubt. At all. And I thought overall Ganson refereed the match splendidly.

On the other hand, we were a scratch side, playing in anger for the first time, against seasoned winners, added to which our game plan went out the window with the late withdrawal of Herbert so our key position had to be switched. Bearing those facts in mind, I reckon that, bloopers aside, our attacking play and defensive patterns were for the most part awesome, and I would honestly believe a million times better than anyone was expecting. When was the last time you watched us attacking, and (just like the opposition) had no idea what we would come up with next? Even without Herbert the thing that got us our lead was the sheer weight of options, and Leeds couldn't cope with it.

Leeds have got the points, and credit to them for sticking at it, but as well as swallowing a very bitter pill, I think we've taken away a shedload more positives than most would have been expecting.

Sums up exactly why we lost in the end.

Had we avoided just one of those mistakes the result would've been different.

Spot on nothing really seemed to be said about it on the commentary, from the replay it was clear Jones-Bishop I think it was ripped the ball and Raynor touched down. Should have been referred yet Ganson was ultra quick to give the knock on against Walker. It's one thing calling it inconsistent refereeing but when the tools are there to use (video ref) there is no excuse. Ok we don't want to spend 20 mins a game with the video ref looking at things but it is there for a reason. I have no qualms with the penalty try at all but he still had to ground it which is never a given with the bounce of a rugby ball, when Delaney was sin binned all Royston would have had to do is take the pass and fall over the line is there a big difference?

I would add the goal line drop out that we forced and then let Leeds regain possession from it. That set led to the penalty try at the other end (I haven't seen the tape yet, but I did feel that was harsh).

However, there was so many positives to take from that game; 1) we played like a team, 2) we had a plan, 3) We had two physical centres who broke things up in the middle (I thought Platt had really bulked up), 4) We had pacy winger who will cause problems to other teams

Gutted about the loss, but I think we'll have a good season, and we can beat Leeds.

Indeed.

And, lest we forget, we were playing a team that finished SIX places above us in the 2010 table.

Other than Salford, who played a team that finished four places above them, every other team played a team that finished within a place or two of them.

Given how heavily the deck was stacked against us anyway relative to every other team - if you use the above placings as a guide - we did exceptionally well to lose by only 4 points, I'd suggest?

Well mainly positives from that game. Got to remember its the first 'proper' game of rugby they have played this season. We still have Herbert to come back. We will beat the Rhinos in approx 8-10 weeks time.

Let me just say something if it wasnt for the double act of Ganson & his mate silverwood we would have gave the Rhinos a right hammering yesterday they couldnt live with us for majority of the game & i think when Chevs try was disallowed it knocked the stuffing out of us a little. Burrows try what a joke that just summed up the day. We all know what the two officials think of us i think the RFL should look at them once again and deal with them accordingly before they cause more mayhem........ We must agree it was encouraging but i still think we are lacking a quality ball player. Well done boys....