Absolutely awful decision in my view.

I can understand benefit of the doubt but how often do you see BOD actually used (often good tries seemed to be denied).

When i first saw it i thought no try as it was clear chase had his hand on the ball, when more players joined in Chase pulled his hand out at the same time the ball dropped out. It seemed clear to me the two events were connected.


If it had been a great piece of attacking play i would have been more sympathetic sometimes the ttacking play should get more of a reward but for a piece of play like that it should never have been given

Not enough video evidence to disallow the try - that is why the VR is there to find a clear reason to disallow, there wasn't any clear reason (too many bodies in the way etc) so BOD was used correctly in that instance.

It was obvious Chase stripped the ball. Anybody with half decent eyesight should of been able to see that. The movement in his right shoulder emphasises it, it jars up at the exact moment the ball wriggles free. He then protested that he hadn't stripped the ball when he didnt actually have a clear view of the ball as he was behind the mam, so how did he know it had been lost? Obviously he stripped it. Bad decision in my book.

The fact is though there was no ACTUAL evidence of Chase stripping the ball away on video, a shoulder movement isn't definitive enough to chalk off a try, but it also wasn't clear enough to be called a knock on, hence benefit of the doubt, the exact reason that rule is in place so used correctly.

It's simple really.

Totally agree. At least you have some common sense and know the simple rules of rl.

You mean like the simple rule of there was no indisputable evidence the ball was stripped out (i.e. a view of the actual offence occurring, not a shoulder movement) is benefit of the doubt? one of the simplest rules there is and Silverwood got it spot on based on the fact you can't call a penalty based on a shoulder movement, if there weren't players in the way it may have been a different story but because you can't 100% say it was a ball steal you can't disallow the try.

Btw I thought you weren't aloud to drag a player into the in-goal area. So why was Chase stood behind the Hudds player and pulling backwards



Sounds like the simple rules of rl to me.

The thing is quite a few people played for that ball which ended up as a ruck and the ball clearly bounces off a few arms/hands to warrant a knock anyway so how he got a try out of it is beyond me...?

But adding off topic Cas did a job and Huddersfield were poor. They seem to have a knack playing against you lot which we could do with.

You could clearly see his hand on the ball and him rip it away! Have another look if you have it recorded, slow motion if you need it, but it's obvious if you look closely.

And to be honest, I wanted Cas to win, I see them as less of a threat then Huddersfield. So there is no bias in it at all. There was definately sufficient evidence to disallow the try.

It's a ruck situation and the RFL rules state that any ruck will be a dead ball and anything that results in ball going loose after a ruck should be either a knock on when ball dead and no advantage or foul play which should be a penalty against team infringing.

I didn't even know he'd gone to the screen for a try so that's how good my eyesight it is. I thought it was a drop out.

Hmm will look again in morning. But hudds were 2nd best in all areas tonight. You could argue that hudds laid on all game despite new rules and got away with it.

I think we were very, very lucky to have that try awarded. For me, you could see Chase with his hands on the ball as it came loose and it should have been disallowed.
However, we have had some really bad VR calls over the last couple of years!

that's two in a week they have had surely that's a season allocation for tigers..?