Silverwood is a crafty bleeder and says Mirfield which is pretty much Huddersfield but has always been able to ref Huddersfield games.

It worked before and I don't know why the scrapped it, so what if Bentham can't ref Warrington, I'd be ecstatic if he couldn't ref Cas games.

That decision was correct.
However...
Whiting did not ground the ball over his own line...a try followed the drop-out.
The double knock-on near Saints line should have gone to Hull feed.
The equalising penalty was an incorrec decision no matter what Eddie and Stevo said.

Another ref may have given these decisions but justice should be seen to be done by a neutral ref.

Whiting was in touch when he caught the ball. Therefore the kick found touch and play should have continued as if the ball had hit the touch line itself (with a Hull scrum).

Isn't that only if it is taken on the full?

I thought Ganson had a good game today. The penalty for the kick was a 50-50 in slow-mo, real time it would be difficult not to give it.



I like him. He a little bit differnet, but good analysis, and doesnt seem to everyone off like Phil Clarke.

I'm pretty sure he did, albeit unintentionally

Then why did they create that silly rule about players making the ball dead by sticking a foot over their dead ball line? Fullbacks started defusing kicks that were bouncing in the in-goal area by stepping over the dead ball line and then touching the ball. This (prior to the silly rule) resulted in a tap on the twenty as the ball was judged to have gone dead in goal without being touched. Same principle applies to in-touch.

It wasn't a double knock on. It never left Fosters hand until the saints player knocked it forward from foster's grasp.

The ball hit Horne and then whiped his hand away so was not a knock-on also why twice Hull players off side from kicks but not Foster at the other end when exactly same happened?

Oh and don't you just love Gansons run across O'Melley then [ i've got to stand somewhere answer.
Even a player knows you don't move across a tackler thats obstruction.

Salty you`re a crust muncher so obviously have a hidden agenda.......

That applies to catching the ball on the full, this wasnt the case with Whiting

Ball kicked thru and bounced in play, Whiting was trying to play on but stepped in touch, head and feed Saints.

i thought he caught the ball and then stood on the touch line

my biggest gripe with him was getting in the way of the defence for roby's try, plus the last incident that led to the penalty to tie the game was a 50 50 ball, there to be won

got to say as a hull fan jon wilkin was outstanding today, kicking and organising his patched up team

I thought this until Foster was attempting to take the ball by knocking it forward presumably into his other hand, when it touched the Hull player it is classed as a knock on by Foster isnt it?

Or am i going mad?

The tackle in the air is just like what Stevo and Eddie kept bleating on about today, interpretation.

I agree Washbrook was going for the ball but he did also take out Ashe in the air.

That was rather funny but there was no way O'Meley was getting near Roby there. He didn't see it coming and was never in a position to get near to Roby whether Ganson ran the interference pattern or not.

I agree with you though I'm not sure a referee should be moving through a defensive line so close to the play, he should have made an effort to get out of the way.

Whether or not Ganson was biased today is irrelevant. When referees get the big calls wrong and they favour their home town team it brings a lot of questions about which are avoidable.

I think we should be trying wherever possible to keep to neutral referees. That way their motives are less likely to be brought into question. I think Ganson cost Hull FC today with a few strange calls and a very daft penalty at the end. I don't think he is biased, but I'm sure there are a few who do not share the opinion right now and it feels proper that we try to be as unbiased as possible.

I freely admit that whilst I would not be a suitable referee, if I were I could not see myself being neutral for a game involving a widnes team against one from out of town.

Hulls last try looked forward!!

I don't know where this idea has come from but it is clearly not true. Certainly in the dead in goal situation players were making the ball dead not on the full to get a tap restart. Maybe it is just that you don't see it happen often as generally there is no advantage to making the ball dead after it has bounced as opposed to doing it on the full - Whiting didn't do it on purpose.



Nah, I had a close look on the replays and he definitely had both feet on the touch line before he caught the ball. Had he caught it then stepped into touch then the decision to give Saints the head and feed would have been correct.

And there I was thinking that 2 teams drew because neither was good enough on their own to score more points than the opposition.

Oh those missed tackles, those dropped balls, those mistimed passes, those knock ons, those not passing to a man in open space etc., etc., and it was Mr Ganson that caused them them all eh.

Talented fellow that can do the job of 34 other people.

Then thank god you are not.

That's so sharp. With wit like that you could slice through the edge of a needle.

I [idemand[/i you up the quality of your trolling, sir. This poor rubbish you are serving would not be out of place on a Justin Bieber forum.

Either do it properly or sod off.

It wasn't

Er, wasn't Mr Ganson's call. That one went to the video referee

Again a video referee decision, how can you blame Mr Ganson for that

After seeing a lot of replays. In real time I thought it was a penalty and I bet most referee's would have given it.

You need a rule book mate, I'll get you the picture version if you like.

Do you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, match officials make mistakes in the same way players do? Or that those mistakes should be open to the same level of comment and scrutiny that players performances are?

Your constant defending of match officials irrespective of level of performance can lead me to only one conclusion - that you are indeed Stuart Cummings.

How can me thanking God that you are not a referee after you said [u"I freely admit that whilst I would not be a suitable referee, if I were I could not see myself being neutral for a game involving a widnes team against one from out of town"[/u possibly be 'trolling'????