What you keep ignoring is that if he'd called it all correctly the knock on wouldn't have even happened as we'd have had a penalty. Talk about wilfully ignoring reality to maintain your persecution complex. Sad.

And don't forget, if he'd have called them all correctly you would have had a try chalked off for a forward pass!

Apparently. They are Leeds, after all.

I'm not ignoring the leg "pull" (hold), I've already given my view on it. It's not my fault you happen to think it's the worst and most deliberate foul ever committed on a RL field.

It's a matter of opinion call, just like the obstruction one. Which I'd have no problem with if it wasn't a TV game as the ref has to make a call. The thing i don't like is that we have the ability to use the VR yet we are tying one arm around his back nowadays in making calls. We saw last year that obstruction calls going to the VR often took 7/8 replays and slow motion speed to decide. With this new 'sending it up as a try/no try' means a ref who has seen it (perhaps only slightly) once at full speed, his opinion based on one quick view will be the one the VR will usually side with even if the video seen from several angles at slower speed show it differently. I think theirs been a few times the VR hasn't necessarily agreed with the on-field call (the two Hudds tries at Cas) as you can usually tell IMO how long they look at something the more they aren't convinced the refs original call was correct but the video has to show ONE HUNDRED percent proof, whereas the on-field ref could send something up as a no-try perhaps only being 50/60% confident. Hell for all we know Silverwood has watched the no-try back and on second look has thought it was harsh and that Tomkins milked it.....that's why if we have the ability to go the VR then why don't we use him properly. He'll always be able to judge on stuff, particularly obstructions, better with several replays and angles than the on field ref.

Didn't you say something earlier about intelligent debate?

The leg hold wasn't a matter of opinion, it was a foul. It's black and white, though you are so totally one-eyed and desperate to explain away a Leeds loss that you would argue black is white.

It was a foul.......in YOUR opinion.

Hence, a matter of opinion.



It's not black and white though is it.

A foot clearly being out of touch, someone dropping the ball, these things are black and white. Whether someone held on to a player's leg too long IS ACTUALLY a matter of opinion.

It's now Sunday the result hasn't changed since Thursday our win must have really wound you up,you are not Kevin Sinfield in disguise by any chance are you.

Another Wigan fan incapable of intelligent debate.

You might have a point if I was ranting and raving about the result and about Silverwood.....however I'm not, I'm merely debating the decisions in the match.

In fact it's the Wigan fan, TheElectricGlidingWarrior who is actually complaining more about a decision (the leg "pull"icon_wink.gif than I am about anything.

P.S. For all the "get over it" comments.....I was "over it" by the time the game ended. I just didn't realise I couldn't discuss things on a message board (the whole point we come on isn't it???) or that I had to stop discussing them by a certain time determined by Wigan fans.

It's fair enough to complain about the way the VR is currently used (and plenty of fans of all teams don't seem to like the current situation), but those are the guidelines we are playing under at the moment, and whatever you think about them, they are the same for both sides.

Actually I think the main bone of contention is that the current rules mean that it's actually not the same for both sides, and that's the problem. If it was the same for both sides then that would mean that every time an incident like the 'obstruction' happened it would go upstairs as a No Try, but as we've seen plenty go up as a Try then the burden on the VR shifts dramatically and teams are advantaged/disadvantaged accordingly. This inconsistency is a major problem.

We have a simple game with straightforward laws that should be easy to implement, especially with the help of HD footage, but errors like this are still occurring. It must take more effort to continually make that harder than it is to make it work.

This is the problem. The VR has several replays at several angles and various speeds to make a decision. The on-field ref sees it once and 9/10 the VR is forced to go with the decision on field. It's completely backwards the use of the VR.

He should be there to make the decisions the ref can't make, not forced to agree with the calls the ref guessed at.

What I don't know is *exactly* what the guidelines are for the VRs. The idiots on Sky keep saying "They have to be 100% sure..."

Well, I doubt it. I'd wager the phrase "100% sure" appears nowhere in the guidelines. Virtually no case is 100% sure. If that was the case, we'd never see any on-field decisions overturned, and yet we do.

So realistically, I'd imagine the VRs are told they have to be 90% sure or whatever. Once again, I'm not suggesting an actual numerical percentage is given, more a form of words that boils down to the same thing.

I could accept the decision as just a soft one that went against us. It happens. Tomkins made a terrible call. got way out of position and begged for a penalty to rescue him. Silverwood gave him one. Its frustrating but they refs get things wrong. I think the length of time the VR looked at it shows he thought it was a try but not enough to overturn the ref. Which is stupid because by definition the referee sending it up shows he wasn't sure. Why have a system that says "im not sure, don't go on what you think with more time and more angles, prove me wrong". I said at the start of the season it was a stupid decision and time and time again it is proving so.

It isn't even the worst part of it. The worst part of it is refs often refer for a couple of reasons. They might refer for obstruction and a grounding for instance. They could refer it up thinking it was obstruction but the grounding was fine so go No Try. The VR can then see it definitely wasn't obstruction, but still be left needing to disprove a knock-on that neither he nor the ref really sees and we are left with a No Try because a knock-on the ref didn't see can't be disproved. It really is a terrible system.

I agree it's a terrible system, and I think we've had this conversation on a previous thread about it. Nevertheless, we all play under the same system and we've all had these calls. The game last Thursday was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other and it's well and truly in the past now.

Not Huby. His ONLY try for the Giants was that hotly disputed effort at Castleford.

i see in the league express that both Hetherington and Schofield are still banging on about these decisions costing Leeds,
it will be interesting to see the reaction should Leeds benefit from a controversial decision in the near future.

Schofield also claimed that the penalty from which the match winning penalty kick was awarded was dubious.... how?