Doesn't matter what Leuluai's intent was, Delaney was offside so it still goes back to the original knock-on



Decision was technically correct, but often that would have been given as a knock-on



Contentious indeed. If only one player throws a punch or punches, there needs to be a sanction applied IMO, but refs will be accused of "spoiling a game" if they send a plyer off in those circumstances, even though that would definitely have been an option.

Same here, and I am one. It's no good moaning about a lack of intensity within the game whilst at the same time fussing over every minor indiscretion. It was about as serious as Bailey's flop on the grounded player - worthy of a penalty and nothing more.

And like I said, what appears on the screen "xxxxx- Attack" or "xxxxx - defense" is decided by the TV company and has got sod all to do with the glossary of terms within the supporting sections to the rules of the game. They decide what goes on screen for the purpose of the viewers/spectators not based the technicalities of the rules. The term on the glossary is "attacking team" and "defending team" NOT "attack"/"defense" would be the only argument the TV company would have for the error......................we dont care what the definitions say will be the fact.

Actually to put the matter to bed.... On BBC Manchester RL phone in, on the refs call section it was admitted that it was a mistake in the video booth...... Simples.... Different system to what they are used to on the sky games and it should have said scrum attack...

Is this still going?!

If they change it "Scrum [insert team]" then there won't ever be this confusion again. Agreed?

Let's move on. The OP was wrong, and has lost credibility, not rugby league.

To lose something, you have to be in possession of it, initially.