Must admit i wouldn't have been suprised or complained to loudly if that was ruled out.

Bob on decision, knew he was offside but chose to follow up with the lead chasers.

While the Jones-Bishop try thats was turned down was a disgrace.

By the current rules its a no try for me, i dont disagree with that. Just thinking if the rule should be changed for 10 yards until the ball is caught or touches terra firma, after that, game on?

Apparently the interpretation is if no part of the body loses contact with the ball and rolls over it, with momentum etc, then it's deemed that the player hasn't lost control of the ball. And they've been given in the past as well, or so I'm reliably informed by someone who almost exclusively watches all his RL on Sky with living down in the smoke.

For me, though, I'd have said no try. If we see other things like that from now on this season that aren't given, then Leeds fans would be right to moan. If they're consistently given, then we have to accept that's the way the laws are applied I guess.

Was that the obstruction call or the grounding on the in-goal touch line?

The price you pay for not going to the game and having to listen to Stevo.

One of the things I like about rugby is the rules. On the whole they make sense to me. There will always be the judgement calls that even in super slow motion people will be unable to agree about. Those are the ones that provide the talking points post game. However, there were a couple of worrying incindents tonight where one of the major RL pundits in the country displayed a lack of understanding of even the most basic rules of the game. At least twice he declared that the video ref was going to give a try when 99.956% of the viewing public could see that there was no way it was going to be given.

Is Stevo the new Ray French?

The obstruction that never happened I am referring to. Would have liked to see the grounding again though!

Both try's turned down in the 2nd half for both the Leeds on and the wire one were the correct decision by the letter of the law. But I personally think the laws need looking at and both should have been given

No try - that's the rule!!

BUT - the very stupid part of it for me - Silverwood - "Micky, you're offside" - Points at him - "Micky, stay back, you're offside" - So, what does Higham do, carry on jogging forward, only slowing down slightly when it bounces.....For me, if he'd stopped, or even turned his back and put his hands on his up and back off the decision might of been different.

Thing is, as I've said elsewhere, to the letter of the laws it was an obstruction, you don't have to make contact with a defender for it to be deemed so. The RFL website has the laws of the game for consultation at any time.

As for whether it should 'morally' have been a penalty, I'd say no - as ever with rule interpretations there's a fine line between pedantry and deciding whether it *really* had an impact on the play. In this case, the video ref went with the pedant option and that's his right as a match official.

Was it Higham's fault for carrying on (hint: yes) or maybe Myler's for standing back for the kick?

that is also my take on both non-trys.

nt

The rule states they had to give no try, I agree with previous comments, i'd like to see a rule where, as soon as the ball makes contact with player/sticks/ground - that should be the point of deciding if the attacking player is within 10.

However, Myler should have got up and played his team on side.

I agree.