Ah,thats where we slipped up,know next time.

feeding the ball into the scrum! there's one that should be reintroduced/ brought back into vogue lol

Hookers striking for the ball? Forwards scrummaging? There are a lot of people on here who will never have seen a real RL Hooker.

I can't remember whether it was home or away, but in one of the Leeds games Lee Smith stepped forward 3-4 metres before he played the ball. He was pushed back by the marker and threw a bit of a wobbler. Eddie and Stevo both shouted that it was a penalty for interference, but it was pointed out that Smith had moved so far forward that he was over the try line.

Think that was Leeds away where Hodgson had stripped the ball, but the penalty was given against Lee Smith for stepping off the mark.

Actually Clarke was repeating an "interpretation" from a good number of years ago - it used to be the case that referees were instructed to immediately call the tackle completed if a player "lent weight" to the tackle to stop the defence from pushing him backwards, I have no idea if this is still the case, some of the decisions lately reshould be policed in that way. But, as usual with the shambles that is Stuart Cummings reign as referees controller for the RFL, we rarely ever get told about 'new instructions' to referees, indeed the only time we really get to know about it is if Sky/Eddie Hemmings get wind of it, and decide to let the rest of us know what's going on.

I'm all for criticising Clarke when there's justification for it, as he does my head in too, but he didn't actually say anything particularly wrong as far as the rulebook goes, I imagine Ganson decided not to call held because the additional Hull player coming in made no difference to the drive Atkins was putting in, and therefore deemed it to be a legitimate dominant tackle from Atkins which resulted in the strip.

no. They changed it to actually lending weight to stop the tackle. As before all another team mate had to do was place a hand on. If your pushing someone back like we do then that punishes good defence.

That sounds about right. Really I think the wording should be "if the attacking team stop the backwards momentum of the ball carrier then the referee should shout held",or something like that. Let's be honest, the issue here isn't really with mauling from a defensive point of view, it's ultimately to stop the ugly practise of an attacking team carting the ball further up field in a maul.

Either way on any of the above comments, I sencerely hope that on Friday night (IF he has the cohonas), when he walks across the pitch to his position of speaking BS we give the bitter,biased,green eyed .......dogs abuse from the South Stand.
He's not welcome any more............as are ANY of his comments.

Can't believe I'll be cheering for the Stains next weekend........