Having watched the SL Show, it is obvious that Leeds blew it with their failure to ground the ball. Whatever players think of the ref, they should keep it to themselves, whether the ref is rubbish or not. Once we start tolerating abuse of the officials the game is on a slippery slope.

Got A £4,000 Fine But Only Had To Pay Half Of It

I haven't seen the game. I have just seen the SSN quick recap of the game where they showed the tries and talking points. They showed Keith playing the ball, Keith having a go at the ref and the Storm kicking the pen, but what was the penalty for?

From what I've read, Silverwood called "Surrender" on the tackle, Keith wrestled his way up anyway and was trying to play the ball but the Storm players were stopping him from playing the ball when he was up.

Was the game playing on after Keith had played the ball and he chose to give Silverwood a mouthful or was a penalty awarded for something else?

Yep the game was playing on and Keef decided to abuse the official for not awarding him a penalty.

He was fairly consistent, it was just that Melbourne had far superior technique in both the initial contact and in the subsequent wrestle. Leeds were often looking to find the ground early without making any progress through the tackle and 'surrender' was rightly called in these instances.

I disagree, I could maybe agree if he was calling "dominant" but IMO most of the time the Leeds players were not surrendering in the tackle.

So why aren't three or four tackles in every set called as surrenders in SL games every week in that case, given ball carriers are coached to find their knees and elbows and generate a quick play the ball?

Is it only me that is curious why Richard Silverwood decided he needed to sit through a lecture from Craig Bellamy on how to referee against Leeds?

Well that's partly a problem with consistency both between referees and from week-to-week/game-to-game. And it's also down to the way players find the ground in a tackle. The Melbourne players, for example, generally went into the tackle strongly, looking to get through it. Once they weren't getting any more significant forward progress, they then looked to find the ground in a good position (knees and elbows, as you mention). That won't/shouldn't ever be called a surrender tackle, it's just good technique. However, often the Leeds players weren't looking to make any ground in/through the tackle and were almost looking to find the floor before contact had been made.

That maps to SL, with the top teams from the last few years generally having the best technique and those at the bottom having the worst. Obviously there isn't anyone anywhere near Melbourne's quality in this area, but much of the success of Leeds, Saints and (maybe 'success' is the wrong word here, but 'improvement' certainly applies) Huddersfield in recent years is down to being superior to the rest at this part of the game. They've been successful at preventing the opposition finding a good position and they've been good at finding the ground themselves. I think Leeds problem was that Silverwood wasn't as loose with the calls as is normal for SL and their inferior technique meant they struggled to adapt their normally successful style.

Here's an idea. Both teams and staff in a room. The ref tells them how he's going to officiate the match. Answers any questions. Job done.

That's fine so long as both teams actually turn up.

No there is the rest of the biased Leeds fans as well

This is unprofessional and unacceptable. The fact Cummins has allowed this alone casts serious doubts on whether he is capable of managing our referees.

No team should be allowed to put together an edited set of highlights pointing out what they want the referee to look for in a game, purely for the reason that if Silverwood is told to look out for something specific he will find it, its human nature.

There should be official procedure for any teams to bring any concerns they have to Cummins (not the individual referee) and then it is Cummins decision of whether he takes that particular issue to ALL his referees and makes sure he doesnt single out any particular team.

What Bellamy did, unarguably influenced a referees performance in a showpiece game. If this isnt addressed I hope Mclennan takes the opportunity to go through the penalties he wants the refs to find in our opposition before every game going forward. And hopefully the new England coach will be having the same meetings with Hayne, Klien etc before the international games

I think you may be mixing up the ruling a bit.
Leeds were going to ground with barely a hand laid on to gain a quick ptb, this is a classic 'surrender' tackle and is NOT negated by the ball carrier wriggling about when the defenders, as they allowed to do under the rules, are allowed to hold on a for a bit. The rule is specifically designed to discourage players from diving for the ground and gaining a quick ptb.

Where I think that where Silverwood went wrong was not that he called them 'surrender' tackles, but that the time he allowed in these 'surrender'/'dominant' tackles, was way out of kilter with what he, or any other ref, allows in SL games.

Again I disagree. Some were surrender tackles but plenty of them were not.