Sadly, going to have to miss out with work commitment

Any chance of a bullet point summary from someone who was there?

TBH, there wasn't a great deal of new ground covered.

Few points that stuck out for me:

Mick Potter will be picking his players based on their form rather than just training.

There's a meeting of the OSV partnership next week and Peter Hood will be pushing for them to produce a statement showing exactly where they are in relation to the project.

Mick Potter has Stuart Cummings on speed dial

One thing that was a bit of a shock to me was that the Bulls have never broken 5k season tickets before this year, even during our glory years.

There were a lot more went than I expected!
Not so many e mail questions then we've had previousley
Quite a gentle evening for the Bulls management than of recent times!
Mick Potter very impressive in his own gentle way!
Paul Medley not there due to the crisis has now passed (my words nobody elses! )
Dilligaf and Bullseye will probably give off the cuff notes. Adeybull did take some notes! so expect them to contribute sometime soonish!
Overall it was a pleasant evening with an expectation of job going well so far!

That's cos the Bulls' spam filter ate my email to Stuart!!!

(I jest not...)

That's really interesting.

Mick Potter came across very well I thought. He's a clever and articulate bloke. He made some interesting points about the PTB and the new interpretations the refs are meant to be using this year. The idea being to reward the player in possession who dominates the collision with a quick PTB and to cut out the unnecessary holding down and wrestling holds that might be dangerous. This shouldn't mean a return to tick and pass RL and endless dummy half scoots hopefully but should reward good attacking play.

He said Jon Sharpe will hopefully be a good liaison with refs and disciplinery committee as he's up with modern methods. Stuart Duffy said some of the ex players on the committee have been out of the game for a while so Sharpe's involvment would help (hopefully).

I hope he's ultimately shown to be right with that Bullseye but I've got to say that's mostly what we got at MM.

He did say it would take time to bed in. My concern is that some refs have some wildly different interpretations to others at the moment with the 37 pens in the Cas game being the obvious example. IIRC the Wigan game had about 12 pens. Thats an obvious inconsistency.

That is James Child for you.

The bloke shouldn't be let anywhere near a whistle.

Hopefully this obvious inconsistency will be fixed this week so it won't happen again.

It was interesting to hear Potter talk about how he thought Ganson may have got caught up in the game during the 2nd half Leeds comeback and carried along with the momentum of things. He said there were several incidents that perhaps should have warranted a Bradford penalty but were ignored. It was an interesting point and I can see how a referee could get caught up in the moment at times. Potter made this point to Cummings and he took it on board apparently.

I don't think the Sky commentators help those situations either. They go on and on and on about how a referee should "let the game flow", which influences the referees into thinking that when a game is fast paced and has some real momentum going, they should be more lenient and "go with it".

Especially when the momentum has swung, or been allowed to swing, to a team that is badly trailing so that all of a sudden, we have game on again and a more entertaining match for the Sky viewer.

I can't imagine though that Sky would express this as official policy to the RFL as any kind of encouragement to see that happen in games. Or that the RFL would want to see it happen to keep Sky happy. That would be influencing the conduct of a game, and I'm sure no-one would want to be seen doing that?

My wife raised an interesting point during the Leeds game, kind of related to the comments on here about the referee going with Leeds as they had momentum. She asked if the VR watched the game, I said I assumed they did. She said that they shouldn't - they should not know what the score is, what has happened before and what has been going on, they should just give their verdict on the incident they asked to judge, and not be swayed by anything else.
Good point I feel.