The Bailey try shouldn't have stood because it was a double movement.

Ryan Bailey isn't a log, he hasn't got a spherical cross-section. Nor does Headingly have a significant slope. The human body doesn't roll unless a) it's going downhill or b ) some force is imparted on it. That was about as clear a case of "subsequent movement to promote the ball over the line" as you will see. It's strange that referees can be so pedantic about obstruction but yet can't understand simple rules of dynamics.

I thought we battled hard.. and played a decent 80 minutes. Along with Leeds we was far from our best but we still got the points and any contrvarsal desision or technically correct but unfair call doesn't mean we didn't deserve it.

Danny Broughs kicking was pretty good all game. He made one attacking kick with about 2-3 minutes to go which made cringe.

Our Forwards competed well. Johnson should have yet again kept his starting spot for next week. He took some stick with some crunching 3 man tackling.

Wood is constantly improving and always looking to attack the line or open a gap.

Ta'ai made some silly errors but probably down to being abit too eager so it's hard to critisize. Anderson made the right choice to take him off.

Overall.. I'm a happy fan.

Drop goals.

Why, when we were 12 points ahead and attacking their line, didn't Danny drop a goal like he did against Wigan? We would have got the ball back and started attacking.

Why, with 1 minute to go when we were attacking, didn't Danny drop a goal? We would have got the ball back for the last set.

Another question for the TV viewers. Why did the decision on that last play take so long when there was a clear obstruction on Danny? The TJ said so immediately? My only conclusion is that Mr S wanted to know if we had infringed earlier so that a penalty could be awarded.

Prior to the Saints match, I said that I would be happy with 4 points from the next 3 games - expecting 2 from that game! I'm happy!!

In theory, the only remaining challenges are Saints, Wire, & Cas. [I did say 'in theory'!

I like Wood and Bruno on the right. Very solid and Kyle is picking up and taking on the line more, haven't seen him do much with the boot yet though. Think we need to stick with this combo.

Wardle is a beast, just needs to get it right if he's flying out of the line. Amazing he is only 22 and smashing second rowers for fun.

Larne is having an exceptional year, show me a player who runs harder than this lad, 100% determination, I don't think he sees anything but the try line, so direct.

I like Kylie at Leeds but his off the ball smashes last night were properly dodgy, no idea how he got away with those.

Great 4 points in last 2 games we just need to keep hold of the ball, complete, and force some repeat sets and we can push on!

COYG

I'm glad we didn't take the 1 point with a few minutes left, short kick offs certainly aren't a strong part of our game! Grubber in goal would have sufficed.

As it was a two point game leeds needed a try to win so kicking a drop goal would not have made much difference.
We are also very poor at short kick offs.

I have watched it again and to be fair to Taai I don't think he took him off because of the error, which on seeing it again he actually trips over a Leeds leg as he goes to play the ball and loses his balance. It looked worst at the time, but I think that's what happened. The penalty given against him in the next set was IMO a little harsh.

He had come on after about 20 mins, then play rest of first half and first 22 of second half, so I feel probably a planned change, not due the error.

First possible DG - he may well have done at the end of the set where Ukuma knocked on, I think we simply didn't get that far.

Second one, I think that would have been the wrong call, Leeds would have kicked off short which could have put them in a better position to try and score. 3 points ahead still loses to a try.

On the various disallowed tries:

By the refereeing protocols the Broughton one seemes to have been correctly ruled out, but I would question the protocol, the only reason Josh Johnson was marginally outside Brough (who was 6-7m behind) was because he altered his angle to avoid collision and go through the line. In effect by avoiding actual obstruction he put himseld in a position where in following what he has to look at Phil Bentham had to rule him as causing obstruction. In short Bentham was correct but the rules are not quite right - easier to take when you have won.

The Bailey try, I cannot understand how that was given, he used considerable force to ensure he rolled over, furthermore, he knocked on (the ball came out of his grip and was in contact with Grix, that is a knock on, yes he got his forearm on the ball, but it was a knock on - I think Ganson and Bentham were so obsessed with momentum they completely overlooked that).

The last minute one, have watched it again, no try for several reasons (also note that the TJ was saying no try, so contrary to what is being spouted elsewhere would not have been given if not a TV game).

Briscoe did push Danny Brough, so whether the bounce would have beaten Danny anyway is irrelevant, in the same way as the JJ "obstruction" did not really effect the Broughton try. Briscoe clearly did not ground the ball either and earlier in the move, when Jodie dropped the kick VRs were looking at who touched it and completely missed Jodie's legs being taken out by the young Leeds hooker, clear case of the man being hit in the air (probably not deliberate but a penalty none the less). Interestingly on the Sky commentry Cummings was pretty quick to decide it was no try regarding the push and said grounding was irrelevant, Phil Clark commented on grounding saying he didn't think it was grunded, Cummings said its irrellevant there is a clear push its a penalty to Huddersfield.

Were we lucky? in a way yes as the overall performance would not normally have been enough to beat a side of Leeds quality. It was a heartstopping finale, but neither side were at thier best. Both had some good moments but neither coach will be happy with overall performance - an exciting match but not the quality these two are capable of. We won though and I think just about deserved to.

If you honestly believe that, then I assume that you have never played any sport in your life. Anybody travelling at speed will not just stop dead unless met with equal or greater force (rules of dynamics???). Even if you trip up over a curb-stone you still travel forward somewhat.

I haven't a problem with the fact it was adjudged to be not a double movement. What is contentious for me is the grounding. Rolled on, it looked like Grix had both hands under the ball, but none of the angles that were looked at could prove that at the time of actual grounding. BOTD at least for me.

Don't be so ridiculous. I never said he would stop dead., I said he wouldn't roll. Humans don't roll. Balls roll, logs roll, wheels roll. Why? Because they are all spherical. Humans aren't. They have all sorts of projetions and flat areas. Had Bailey slid over the line I would have no problem but he didn't. He fell to the floor with Grix on top of him and then rolled over the line. Irrelevant of his forward momentum the only way he rolls is by pushing into the ground, as soon as he does that he has ceased to move under momentum and has promoted himself over the line. To the letter of the law that try should not have been given.

Both teams were crap if we are honest. Hudds were the better team (just), Briscoe never fouled Brough, but the Briscoe grounding looked suspect at best.

Brilliant!!

Ever rolled a dice?? Objects don't have to spherical or void of any flaws to roll provided the correct amount of force is applied and momentum is gathered.