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.

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 "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" possibly be 'trolling'????

Reading thru this thread you're spot on.

I'm a Saints fan but it was a wrong call from the TJ/Referee and proved costly for Hull. Saints scored from the scrum.

Imagine Whiting caught the ball 5 metres over the touchline. There wouldn't even be a debate about it as everyone would know he was in touch when he caught the ball.

Standing on the white line is exactly the same as the line is deemed touch. Should have been head and feed to Hull.

Correct.

The annoying thing about this is that its understandable for people on here not to understand the Laws but when you get the likes of Paul Cullen on Boots N All last night, highlighting it as a Hull error, then theres not much hope.

That rule only applies on the full. Meli's kick bounced.

And as for Ganson obstructing O'Meley....seems the prop was rather quick out of the scrum, considering props are pretty binded in there.

As I was saying -its understandable people here not knowing the Laws, but full time professional coaches/managers?

Whether he caught it on the full or not makes no difference.

So a player kicks the ball towards touch; it bounces before leaving the field of play, whereon a player, stood in touch over near the boards, catches it. What's the call?