There are plenty of grey areas in rugby league regarding interpretation & implementation of rules ,all the way from what we saw on Saturday through forward passes ,perceived knock-ons even the refs interpretation of dangerous play. The referee plays just as important a part as the teams in determining a result. No wonder the judiciary get so much stick when the rules are open to enabling right or wrong decisions.

My issue here is not with the interpretation of the laws (I agree that there will inevitably be many grey areas in the interpretation of the laws in a wide array of sports), but of the apparent misrepresentation of the laws in this instance, where it has been put forward as a matter of fact that the use of the torso to ground the ball applies only to an attacker and not a defender, but the law as written explicitly does not make that distinction. Saying that it does to justify or (if the ball was on the other foot) to impugn a decision is clearly simply wrong. The problem is that, if it is said with such authority as has happened in this instance, and without proper challenge, it ends up either becoming the truth or, at least, being accepted as such. 


Unfortunately, the forceful and quasi-authoritative dissemination of inaccuracies and untruths has become an increasingly worrying feature of society generally, led by governments and big business whose poor examples are regretfully replicated in nearly all aspects that effect our daily lives.       

Remember that time we played Halifax away and Briers kicked 5 drop goals and we still lost. Maybe if he'd kept putting it in goal to force them to do repeat sets we might have tired them out and scored 2 tries or more?

I would have liked to see drop goals, we may have got one before the pressure from defenders shut that down, but that may have opened space wide, who knows 


The ruling on the try is the only downside for me, if the ref and video ref don't know the ruling under the laws of the game, then we are in trouble. The biggest final in the sport, marred by officials not knowing the laws of the game, is unacceptable. The RFL backing the officials is as poor as it gets.


The early attempt at a tackle by Burgess on Thewlis would have resulted in a Yellow or Red card in any other game; again, poor officiating by the ref and video ref.

1986 premiership play off at central park Paul bishop banged over 5 drop goals to help demoralise Wigan so it does work..and I firmly believe a dog on Saturday would of won us the game...as Alex Murphy once said always come away with something 

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of your post, 'to err is human' and all that, BUT for third parties including it seems the powers that be, yes there is a greater authority that Jon Wilkins, to compound matters by fudging and tinkering around the edges to back up the match day officials is unacceptable and that is why in this case "the judiciary" is getting "so much stick". 


          

Which is more or less what i said . Wilkins' after the fact comments are irrelevant except to the tv viewers , but the laws of our game allow ambiguities from the officials & could do with either tightening up across the board, considering we have video replays to get a final decision, or simplifying to allow clear decision making for refs & less confusion for fans on the terraces.

Fair enough, I'm not really arguing with you but thought you were excusing the post match reflections. They seemed to skew an interpretation of the laws as a FACT, a primary function to back up the on field/video ref's decision on the day, rather than admit that it's not clear cut and hardies.


Sport, despite the advancement and use of technology is still full of ambiguity and interpretation and that despite it seemingly working against us, is what makes it exciting. The try was given I'm over it, the guff following is harder to swallow.                

Vs Wigan, Premiership Semi 1986?  Think it was Paul Bishop banged over 5 and the rest is history.

My annoyance with the final isn't just about this Orwellian rewrite of the rules to justify the decision but a general feeling that with incompetent, weak officials and subjective rules we have a perfect storm for injustice.


On the final seconds, in full view of a linesman Waerea Hargreaves piles into Tai who is lying prone on the floor, in touch.  Nothing given.


Two incidents resulting in MRP charges that would have been yellow cards in a SL game.


Moore's ludicrous call of a try in the playoff semi last year.


When matches are decided by refs and men in booths making guesses which cannot be proven or disproven by technology or clear, unambiguous rules the net result is spectators walk away

I wonder if there is a rule against using your captains challenge to challenge the “I’ve got a try” stuff. If the Holroyd one goes up as a try it is likely to get given, there’s a hand on the ball but it’s not ‘conclusive’ evidence. Similarly with the Davies try, if they’re going to look for a reason to NOT give the try, they’d find it.