I thought the ref did ok considering it looked like one of the dirtiest and niggliest games i have seen since the 1970s. Every tackle had a little bit of niggle elbows , heads fingers in the face knees from the second man ine tc and off the ball incidents going on all the time. I reckon Silverwood was just waiting for it to kick off

That was the main problem I had with him. He went into the game with a clear, pre-conceived idea that he was going to keep an eye on everything Lauaki did and that's not acceptable. His prejudice meant that he missed everything that was going on from the Rovers players to try and wind Lauaki up and he jumped on every reaction from Hame. It's stupid from Lauaki to react like that, he knows (or should do) that he'll be penalised, but he wouldn't have had to react if Silverwood had done his job and given the penalties that should've been awarded in the first place.

Spot on.

have you not seen a Hull derby before? its always a dirty, niggling game with potential to boil over into a fight!

Can somebody explain to me why Silverwood brought Hull back about 60m down the field for a penalty to us?! Where is the advantage?! He let play go on for about a minute, waited for the tackle, then brought it back and gave US a penalty?! What have I missed to justify that decision?!

Im presuming its cos it was put on report therefore you give the penalty from the infringement

If it wasnt going on report then it would have been advantage

I thought he gave a couple of wrong calls but on the whole he seemed fine to me. . Agree with the luaki comments too,rovers got away with loads of dirty stuff but then again i suppose if he only sees a punch thrown thats what he penalises.i dont think either set of players covered themselves in glory though to be honest.

Silverwood kept the game flowing whilst exerting control over some excesses

Whereas the Saints/ Pie game was ruined as a spectacle by the ref taking a starring role and failing IMHO to get a full grip early on.

We had Terry Albert in our game, and he had no idea what was going on. I'm sure he didn't even understand his own decisions half the time.

Well that's ridiculous. What advantage will Hull get from the incident being on report? Could he not have put the incident on report and played on from where the advantage finished? It's just a ridiculous decision to me and I can't get my head around it at all.

But the players did no wrong, they never do. They play by the rules, never try to cheat or hurt or injure anyone and talk nicely to each other.

Those nasty, overbearing, know the rules, match officials ,however, are a different kettle of fish!!!

Wow, did he knock on? Make a high tackle? Punch someone in the tackle?

Plyers foul play amd mistakes spoil games.

Im presuming, cant think of another reason why advantage wasnt allowed

What are you on about this time...?

He's on about the same thing he's always on about. It's the same boring rhetoric and it doesn't ever get any more meaningful. I'm not sure why, but he seems to think that because one group of people is being criticised (in this case match officials), all other people are being completely exonerated. It's a bizarre position to take, especially given the number of threads devoted to criticising players and coaches.