The clock was the other side of the TV camera position from the scoreboard. It wasn't raised so most people would have had a restricted view. Why was the time on the scoreboard not used? It was stuck on 40 the whole game.

Now, when I sat next to Mike Roberts at GP, I always knew the time because he ran his own stopwatch pretty much in accordance with the ref's signals.

Incidentally, the drenched Radio Leeds commentator (poor s*d) had no problem seeing the countdown clock. I think he was perched on top of the East stand.

I've been told by someone in the know that there is a problem with the main scoreboard software and they can only get the clock to count up and not down so a temporary separate clock is being used.

Now the views of someone who has only ever seen 4 RL games. The tackling yesterday was massively improved compared to previous games I've seen, the Broncos appeared to be more mobile than Huddersfield but when they got close to Huddersfields try line and the space was reduced they became clueless.

Both Broncos trys looked dubious to me, the first one looked like he put the ball down short of the line and the second was a forward pass.

THE biggest difference between the sides was how they dealt with the windy conditions. The first kick of the second half put straight out of play and fumbles when receiving the ball killed Broncos chances. There also seemed to be very little pressure on Huddersfield players receiving kicks and they certainly dealt with them better than Broncos did.

I have a question. The Huddersfield kicker was putting the ball low and bouncing, it looked to me that Broncos players could've just watched these kicks bounce out of play, why didnt they?

Quote: meliferra " I have a question. The Huddersfield kicker was putting the ball low and bouncing, it looked to me that Broncos players could've just watched these kicks bounce out of play, why didnt they?'" Were they potential forty-twenties? https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/i ... 106AAkSKM4 Hudds kicker Danny Brough is the best tactical kicker in Superleague.

Quote: meliferra " I have a question. The Huddersfield kicker was putting the ball low and bouncing, it looked to me that Broncos players could've just watched these kicks bounce out of play, why didnt they?'" Were they potential forty-twenties? https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/i ... 106AAkSKM4 Hudds kicker Danny Brough is the best tactical kicker in Superleague.

But these kicks were straight down the middle and had no chance of going out between the try line and the 20mtr. It appeared to me that Broncos just didn't know how to deal with them and ended up knocking on. I guess it's just my ignorance of the game.

Oh, if they weren't headed for the touchline and would have gone dead, they could have been left, unless they were from a kick-off or penalty, in which case we'd have had to drop out from under the sticks, which kick has to travel 20 metres, so returning possession to Hudds.

(If mickeyb sees this, you'll probably get a better answer as I believe he's a qualified ref.)

If ball was kicked from in field of play problem with leaving it is if it does not go dead then you have to run the ball out from further back so best option is to regather as early as possible unless it's certain to go dead, kick returns can be game changers look at wc semi and Sam tomkins. If it goes dead then it's an optional tap or drop from 20mtr

I'll bow to Micky's experience on this, but if Meliferra's question is in the context of Danny Brough's kick-off towards the end of the 1st half that was fumbled, had the ball been allowed to go out of the back of the in-goal area, having bounced in the field of play, Broncos would have been forced to drop out under the sticks.

If ball goes dead behind dead ball line from kick off ifit bounces first or touched by a defender it's a drop out from under the sticks
if it goes dead from a penalty be it an attempt at goalthat misses or a kick for touch that goes to far then it's a drop out from the 20 mtr line both cases the drop out has to travel 10mtrs before it can be touched.
Basically a good last kick option is high ball dropping just short of try line if you are close enough to have a chasers who can contest for the ball.
If not then a ball that hits the deck in between the fb and winger even better if you can get the ball to stop in goal.
In wet orrible slippy conditions keep it low force defenders to pick up a wet bobbling ball, in answer good tactics from udders

I thought Saturday was a pretty good performance - obviously save for the schoolboy errors that cost us the game straight after half-time.

Grima keeps his better players on for much longer than Rea and I think this worked well: Moore, Vea and Cook are plenty fit enough to do long minutes. I was surprised to see McMeeken with the Skolars but I think we got more from the forwards than usual - Foster offering himself as a running option made a welcome change.

I thought Drinkwater was great with the ball in hand. The first time I've seen him talking and bossing the attack. Grima showing confidence in him in the week has probably helped. But he needs a stand-off and neither Farrar nor Cunningham are good enough at 6. Drinkwater and Bishay are the best pairing I've seen.

All in all, another chance for a win gone. But three winnable games coming up.

I think we are left with the diehard fans now but I would imagine that almost all of these would support a similar team with a real chance in a division below.

Sorry Listy, but I think you're being way too harsh. We lost the game during the five minute brain-fart at the start of the second half.

Personally I was impressed by the way we weren't being outflanked all the time, only one try came round the outside. Granted they waded through the middle a couple of times, but in general I thought the defensive effort was miles better than we've seen in the past, and definitely more organised.

As someone else has said, Danny Brough is one of the great kickers, not surprising that some of them were difficult to deal with, but we still mopped up more than we spilled.

They did look clueless with the ball at the end but it was obvious they were out on their feet.
And that tells its own story, they'd given 100% effort. How many times could we have said that in the last two seasons? This team gives more in 10 minutes than last year's did in a whole game.

I really feel for you guys. London deserves a successful team.

Over in the NRL, the authorities came out with statements that they were going to fund Melbourne whether other clubs liked it or not because the city was too improtant to not have a successful RL team.

Food for thought, Messrs Wood & Rimmer?

We wish! Good to see you on Saturday.

Only worth doing if there is a viable business plan and effective management in place. The reason we're in the position we are is because of a total absence of either for several years.

I've thought much the same. My view is that for RL in this country to try to compete with the RFU and NRL, it needs a successful London club and the commercial revenue that would come from it, and indeed the further expansion of the game. That said, I believe that the majority of RL fans in this country would prefer to maintain the status quo, with their team the big/medium fish in the small pond. To be fair, it's a view I can understand, even if I don't agree that it's in the sport's best interests.