Regardless of whether the ref had blown, or whether he contacted the head - Gaskell didnt have the ball in his hands so it was as clear a penalty as you will ever see.

It was a cheap shot and should have been a sin bin.

Funny how G1's post remains unanswered

This is the important point. Elima committed to the tackle [iafter[/i the ball had been dropped. It was late, it was a clear penalty.

Anyone that is arguing that Elima shouldn't have been penalised needs their rose-tinted specs taking off. The whistle hadn't been blown, but that doesn't mean you can hit a man who doesn't have the ball. Elima wasn't committed to the tackle until AFTER it was dropped. He could easily have pulled out. He has a right to contend for the ball, but not to take a man off the ball (which it clearly was). It was also high. It was 100% a penalty. I'm not sure what the rules are on use of the sin-bin, but I think it should have been more punishable than just a penalty.

As for the Foster incident. He has every right to challenge for the ball. But if he does so in a reckless and dangerous way, it's a penalty. It was reckless (he kicked someone in the face!), and had it happened anywhere else on the field he'd have been penalised. 8-point try spot on.

The sin-bin was for persistent offending by Saints. Silverwood had no choice. He had to give a penalty and he had to follow through after a warning. However, he bottled it was Elima after telling him if he spoke again he'd be off, which was followed immediately by him speaking again! Elima showed a lack of respect and had lost the plot. Good job Potter brought him off!

That was my view of it too. Late, high, unnecessary.

I know... rlpoprl) - I just thought pointing out that London still lost would be amusing.

There was physical contact made with the referee at least twice - one with a player (Jefferies?) sneaking round the blind side of the scrum - with the ball - and another being the one I think G1 referred to, which looked to be a collision while running that sent both Silverwood (I only saw the aftermath) and the contacting player (Bateman?) to the floor.

Thing is, collisions can be accidental, and the rules recognise this (rl16.8.1 (e)rl). They distinguish between accidental collisions, and physical contact contrary to the spirit of the game (rl15 (i)rl), which is what Bailey and Webb were charged for. I didn't think there was anything untoward in the incident at the scrum, and I didn't see the running collision, so have no opinion as to which that was.

Good ref, nearly all his decisions were correct. Bradford just about deserved it. Respect for Whelans at the end though. He didn't blame anyone, other than saints themselves.

The forward pass missed in the build up to the scousers first try was amatuer night from the officials.

The only angle Sky caught it on was from behind the posts IIRC.

It's a fair old distance behind play, both parties appear to be running at full speed and in the same direction when the Bulls player bundles straight into the back of Silverwood, who didn't appear to change direction or slow down.

At the very least it looked like contact that was unnecessary and could have been avoided. Whether you categorise that as "accidental" is down to interpretation.

Elima slapped with a grade b charge, Foster not guilty, was entitled to play for the ball and contact was not intentional.

Obviously correct rulings from the RFL this time, can't believe there were people on here agreeing with the 8 point try and even suggesting Elima didn't do anything wrong...

It was a foul committed in the act of scoring a try. I don't see how you can argue against the eight point try. I can see surprise being expressed at ever seeing such a thing at all, but arguing against it? He swung his boot carelessly and recklessly, but not maliciously. There are penalties awarded for high tackles that happen carelessly without malice, why would it be different when it's legs being swung instead of arms? It was just a penalty, nothing more nothing less.

Said in the ground Elima would get at least one match for that. No arguments from me.

Fool.

The ruling was "penalty sufficient".

What part of "p-e-n-a-l-t-y" do you have trouble understanding?