Good thread this.

I know. Some people just want to be miserable.

Excellent and indisputable confirmation.

Sadly, though, the FACT that it did not go forward is of no interest to the sort of people on here, who probably don't believe Neil Armstrong ever set foot on the Moon, either. You're wasting your time. They WANT to feel the hard-done-by pain.

Now we have conclusive evidence that you are wrong, are you going to offer an apology to the officials?

Go and watch soccer, they deserve blokes like you !

you mean Neil Armstrong didin't actually walk on the moon then ?

just as I thought, another bloody conspiracy....

For me the pivotal moment was Sinfield going for the 2nd penalty. I knew from that moment that Leeds didn't have the confidence to go and win it. Leeds needed to get out to a big start like they did against Wigan in the semi to have a chance of winning.

As for the refs, I've learned that they actually do a great job. They go out to be the best they can and sometimes make mistakes. However, having come home and watched a match on the telly and seen how often, me and the crowd have got it completely wrong I never call a ref.

Maybe we should have a thread next week criticising every mistake made by a team on sky??

It's different when your teams involved though, at the game sometimes you see a blatant knock on from the stand that when you rewatch is actually a ball steal that the officials have got spot on, but an identical one next time you go is still wrong.

But when neutrals are coming on here claiming this is the end of rugby league with two refereeing decisions that are correct then that is more damaging than anything else could be.

The briers "knock on" incident raises a question about those technical offences. I was under the impression that changing the direction of the flight of the ball in anything other than it's current direction or backwards from that direction was a knock on.

Now, if the incident which is being over analysed to the nth degree was not a knock on, then why do referees penalise the tackled ball carrier when they lose control of the ball and recover it whilst facing their own goal line.

The current laws of the game say a knock on is when the ball is knocked towards the opponents deadball line.

I was at the match and have not seen it on TV. Can someone please explain for me what happened after the Leeds disallowed try? The video ref's decision was no try, scrum defence. But, as I recall Leeds won the scrum. Was that "against the head"? Did I miss the actual scrum and rejoin after another in the same position because I was trying to work out the decision? Did the ref give it the wrong way round? Or, did Warrington actually win it and I suffered from some sort of illusion?

Leeds got the scrum because they were the defending side at the time! Hodgson was carrying the ball in so Wire were the attacking side. He lost the ball in the tackle (first knock on) and Leuluai then flicked it away (second knock on) which Delaney picked up from an off side position. It wasn't a try becaue Delaney was off side and Leeds got the feed because Wire knocked on first.

the way i so it and i was their if the try was not a try why was the ball given to Leeds and not to warrie it still does not make sense to me i will have to think about, it but saying that warrie would still have won

Good question, can we have another from the chap at the back with the grey shirt !