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".

Got my teams mixed up,

Scrum defence = Warrington feed. Leeds ended up with the ball which suggested either the call was incorrect on the big screen or Leeds won it against the head.

The Kylie Knock was a bit of a 50/50 for me on past decisions. I don't think Kylie played for it, it looked like he only realised the ball was loose after it touched his hand. Then he makes a move to regather it. I’ve seen similar things happen and decisions go both ways.

The Briers knock on looked like it went behind or parallel to him from my position, which was the 40 yard line behind him.

The Wood punch is the one that irked me. He threw a punch plain and simple. He chose to throw the punch, which every player knows can result in a yellow or red card. There didn't look like any need for him to throw the punch, as it just looked like a shirt collar grabbing tussle. It would be totally on him for ruining the game not the ref. Several other tussles happened in the game, which didn’t result in people throwing punches. Every player i’ve seen throw a punch this year has been sent off or binned(granted i’ve not seen every match playedicon_wink.gif ). He deserved a binning atleast for throwing the punch imo. From what i’ve seen it doesn’t look like Ablett threw any punches.

Anyway Warrington played better and won the game. They completed sets and had the better kicking and passing game. If Leeds did get the disallowed try and the knock on call i still don’t think we’d of won. Wood going in the bin might of turned the game, but I’ve seen Leeds struggle to take advantage when they’ve got the 1 man over. Taking the 2 points when it was 6-6 was a gamble that didn't pay off imo. Leeds were in a good attacking position and seemed to have the advantage. In similar positions Warrington had the confidence to attack instead of go for the kick. We were still in it 18 points down with 20minutes to go. Still with 10mins to go we could of been down to 9-11 points. An awful pass on the 70th-71st minute when were camped on Warrington’s line finished any hope off.

Re the "punch", the fact is that a crunch match like the CC Final can't be quite refereed as if it was just any old game, sending a player off is an infinitely more serious sanction than in a league game. Plus, these are supposed to be the two leanest, meanest sides having a go hell for leather at each other, winner-takes-all. It is for this reason that the refs tend to (rightly) use more discretion, you only have to watch any Origin game to see what I mean.

Secondly, in my experience the odd dust-up is appreciated by the fans - it generally sorts itself out, and shows that there is some passion about.

The "punch" wasn't much more than a push, it did no damage, and the player wasn't felled, shouldn't have done it but a penalty and a stern word were perfect in the circumstances in my book.

Sending him off for that would put us on a par with soccer, which started off down this "consistency" path years ago and has now degenerated to the farcical situation where a glancing brush to the face with a little finger can count as "violent conduct" and get a player sent off. While his opponent writhes on the floor as if his head had been boiled then steamrollered, and his mates surround the ref in a furious mob, all brandishing imaginary cards.