Agree! Though this decision had two officials cocking it up.

I think the problem is the ground. It's hard to get to, hard to park at. They then compound it by not having cash turnstiles, making 4,000 people who turn up expecting to pay their way in queue at the ticket office. Getting out is a similar problem, you wait an hour if you park in the official car park before you can get out. Nice little ground but they need to work on things if they are serious about expanding the crowds long term.

TBH if there is a difference of opinion what do they do. They can't both be right.
Which one is the boss?

They was waiting for Ryan Giggs's entourage to arrive

....and the first replay they show AFTER the decision clearly shows the hand on the ball. As for listening to Phil Clarke...well....how much has Marwan payed him

Off camera they do rock/paper/scissors.

Koukash has clearly paid the commentators to be so far up his ass they can't see straight

Difference of opinion = doubt, and as stated above the benefit goes (or at least should according to the laws of the game) to the attacking side.

That's why I included the word 'should'

I'll invite a load of bile by saying there was one angle that hinted very strongly he had lost the ball beneath his body just before it grounded. What was odd for me was they only looked at that angle once, while they looked at every other angle several times, all of which looked a certain try.

I can see why it wasn't given based on that angle, but personally I'd have given it.


I think it's more to do with the roadworks around J11 on the M60.

One good thing emerged at least: Cummings sounded genuinely embarrassed.

At full speed it's a try all day. At slo-mo it's still a try. From no angle is it not a try.

From one angle, there is a suspicion that the ball was coming loose, but no image shows the player lose possession and the main shot very clearly shows a hand on the ball as the ball is firmly on the ground.

Ganson has now made a number of totally maverick VR decisions and is clearly not able to do the job. He can't be let loose on the VR again, he's dangerous.

As Sky/RFL are so keen to let us see and hear more and more of the VR, I'd say they should put a slot in Boots n All where the VRs attend, and show the fans what it is they say they saw that made them reach their decision. It has to be rational, and based on some sort of evidence. So what?

Much of the problems with the VR stem from the way the VR is asked by the on-field ref. Usually, the field ref simply says "check the grounding" or "check the obstruction" which, in many cases, means nothing.

I'd like to see us adopt the system used in the NRL, RU and American Football where the field referee has to commit to a decision, which the VR has to conclusively disprove. If it can't, the decision stands - no "benefit of doubt" nonsense.

As a system, it is much more transparent for the fans, it makes contentious decisions easier to accept (eg, if there was no VR, the try would stand) and it increases accountability for referees. That said, the latter benefit is probably why the RFL is reluctant to introduce it.