Bottom line is, Kendall or the liners would not of seen the grounding of that ball. So how can you send it up as a try? Surely you would send it up as No Try and if theres evidence to give it, then fair enough.....

Spot on it's THE most inconsistently policed law ever IMO same thing happened against Salford for a couple of their scores. I know I've P&B specs but these recent decisions, administered so marginally, are deciding games it's so open to abuse on every level. .

This is all a farce. Get rid of video calls she just let the referee make the calls again. Game needs to flow better and mistakes are still made all the time. Adds nothing to the spectacle…

not quite, he sent it up to the VR on the balance of probability - like refs do every single game without the benefit of the cameras there. I thought the idea was they were supposed to award the try based on what they would have given if the cameras weren't present. If the cameras weren't present I would hazard there would not have been a debate about it at all and the decision would have been accepted without question.
I repeat, we still cannot see what the ref saw at the time even with the multiple camera angles. Perhaps what we really need is a "ref cam" rather than multiple camera angles!

I've seen this again a few times now and I don't see how the try couldnt have been awarded really on balance of probability kendall has to think it very likely touched a blade of grass. Under old rules benefit of doubt to the attack awards the try as well. It looked held up to me and camera angles suggested held up but the ball goes missing and could very well have been grounded.

Really though I'm at a loss to see what the 6 again was awarded for 2 tackles previous to the try. That was the really shocking decision from kendal. He did it to us all game, Hull got a few against them too. Absolutely appalling referee.

I couldn`t see any reason either, he just seemed to buckle under the pressure from the home crowd.