Dont feel too hard done by, that is the preserve of the smaller clubs.
Usually, the big 4 seem to get all the calls, which is probably just down to the perception of the fans of the lower clubs.
Is is really a case that the officials have been so poor in Perpignan or, is it the failiure of the ref to have a leaning towards a voiciferous and partisan crowd ?

I personally don't feel 'hard done by' - my team is Saints and we get our fair share of the calls , being one of the 'big 4' that is..

yeah, the officials have been poor this season at the GB with Halibut being the worst at Montpellier with Roby, Thaler & Child not far behind - true what you say though about the 'partisan crowd' and credit to the opposing players and the officials for being strong enough to overcome that vociferous and sometimes hostile crowd though it's no different to the good old days in the threepenny stand when away fans as well as officials were treated to similar verbal and occasional physical abuse when things didn't go for the home side ! haven't been to the KC so I don't know how it is nowadays but if some of the travelling FC fans are anything to go by then I don't really fancy a visit.

Regarding the OP - sporting history is awash with mistakes or contentious decisions - ball across the goal line? RU refereeing around the scrum - always open to interpretation, especially in world cup games.

As RL fans we worry too much about our credibility rather than concentrating on improving the game.

Regarding the main issues in this game;

1) Knock on from Kylie - the question is not whether he knocked it on, but whether he hit it unknowingly whilst making the tackle or did he attempt to grab the ball.
We see many games where a defender knocks the ball forward when making a tackle and it is ruled play on as they were not trying to get the ball. It didn't look like he knew where the ball was to me.


2) Briers - 99% of all games that would have been given as a knock on. Even where a ball more obviously goes backwards, the referee usually rules that the defender didn't control the ball and it is a knock on - It's pretty much a given other than when the ball continues to go straight behind the player. There was more than enough change in the direction of the ball for that to have been judged a knock on. It was also a very funny attempt by briers..........

3) Woods punch. Only a penalty? In a recent game Wigan v Wakefield. McIllorum was sent off for throwing a single punch on Elima - despite appearing to get elbowed in the head.

This is the most obvious area where referees should show consistency - a punch is a punch - everyone saw it, Woods was penalised for it, did he mean to do it - of course - it wasn't misjudged, mistimed, accidental. No debate at all - it's a sending off - regardless of the context of the game.

IMO - there should be room for a bit of biff - but something like this is so easy to apply the law consistently - why a completely different outcome for exactly the same offence?

Another ref and Warrington could have been playing most of the final with a man down - and then the main talking point would have been 100% about this - as it is, just because the ref decided to do something completely different in this case it is completely ignored. In other games punches are ignored - why the difference?

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.

Fighting/punching should be simply 10 mins in the bin, 2nd offence same game red card.

Allows for a bit of biff but stops the game becoming a farce, everyone's a winner.

I understand why you would think that but technically Leeds were the attacking team. The definition of the attacking team in the laws of the game is the team which has territorial advantage regardless of who has possession of the ball. The incident happened in Warrington's half, so Leeds had the territorial advantage.

Where is this definition, just out of interest?

I've always been under the illusion that the attacking side is the team with the ball.

Me too.

Me too, but just looked up the rlInternational Laws of the Game.rl



Well, guess you learn something everyday. Seems an odd rule though, possession would appear to be a better definition unless I'm missing the obvious reason for it.

Has the game ever had any credibility in the eyes of the fans?

It's the theory that if you have the ball close to your own line you will play more conservatively and of a less attacking nature. If you are the team not in possession you gain more of an advantage for forcing the error by being more aggressive in the tackle.

The call on Saturday was Scrum Defence which suggests that it was a
Leeds feed. Not sure if that was the case, as I had lapsed into a coma due to the time it took to make the decision, but Warrington ended up with the ball after the scrum.

Why does it suggest it was a Leeds feed? If it goes by territorial advantage, then surely Leeds would be the attacking team as they were closest to the Warrington line?

no but then I've never met sports fans who can whinge about the game they supposedly love like RL fans! RL fans remind me of them blokes you meet down the pub who complain about their bosses, hate the company they work for, slag off their wives, yet spend 50 years staying with them all!

Hey, dont bring us into your domestic situation, I heard she was a lovely lass

Will start off by saying that I always assumed that the attcking team was the team who had possession of the ball. That being said there is one thing to bear in mind with the call on Saturday and the Glossary within the rules. The screen never said "scrum attacking/defending team" it said "scrum defence". Defence and Attack are terms "introduced" by the TV companies (SKY) completely separate from the rules of the game. As regards Saturday's call, Warrington had possession at the time of the first offence (Brett's knock-on) so feed to Leeds would be correct call. As indicated on other posts it would be far simpler for the fans if the screen had read "scrum Leeds".