I agreed with what you're saying but my point is your fans can't moan when your lot are on the wrong end of the penalty count.

IMO silverwood let KR get away with all sorts. if Wigan are more dominant in collision they are entitled to a quick PTB.

I understand what you're saying but would pick you up on one point; why can't they be penalised every tackle if they're infringing every tackle? Surely the point is to stop infringing, not to allow it because they refuse to stop? Let me put that statement in perspective; If the infringement was head high tackles rather than slowing the play the ball down would you suggest the same principle applied and that they should be allowed if one team does enough of them during a game? It's interesting that some people are using the penalty count as some indicator that KR are somehow hard done by. It seems to me that they are the most penalised team (certainly in the game on Friday) because they infringed more often. That's exactly as it should be.

I see what you are saying, but its context and deliverance.

HKR have been penalised, mainly because we are not fast enough, or dont possess the ability to slow the ruck down enough and thus on the back foot. As ive seen every minute so far this season, most high shots come from being on the back foot, the holding down ive covered. To answer your question, they should be pinned. If i was coach, knowing how poor the referees are, i would instruct my team to slow down until penalised, if you get away with it why not use it? Wigan did for a few seasons before mastering the art of slowing it down legally.

But now the problem seems to be we are getting picked for every little thing, Silverwood couldnt give 50 pens against on Friday, everyone would moan the game was spoilt, yeah we have controversy with the VR not having his glasses on but you cant penalise every tackle, there should be a line, yes we was bending it, but didnt always break it.

The funny thing about holding down, you could hold down for say 8 seconds in the middle of the park, but if you made a break and wanted to play quick, anything over 5 and your likely in the bin. Where is the consistency in that? Should have a time on it, or a rough count in the head, so soon as the player is on the ground you can hold for x seconds, must be clear by that. Shouldnt be too hard to govern? the idiots with the flags could count?

the ref shouts held when he deems the tackle is complete, if any tackling player(s) still have a hand on the ball carrier 3 seconds after this he blows for penalty. Won't take the players or coaches long to realise you can't hang on forever....BUT unfortunately we don't have officials who can count to 3 as well as look at the line for offside, check for being square at the play and keep count of the number of tackles.......

If the officials all policed the lying on to the same standard it would be a help, but they all seem to have their own idea how to interpret the rules

being able to count to 6 would be a start....

It depends on the tackle. Usually when a player is tackled after a break both players are able to get up within 2 seconds, because there's only two of them involved and it'll most likely be a non-dominant tackle round the legs. On the other hand, in the middle you might have a forward fighting for metres with 3 defenders on him, then hitting the deck after the ref calls held with the defenders coming down with him and getting tangled up. It's common sense that Tomkins catching Hall by his bootlaces after a break is going to take far less time than Peacock trundling it up the middle. As such refs just need to use their judgement as they currently do.

Maybe the Charnley try was the right decision. From James Childs twitter account via Bilko https://twitter.com/wiganrlfans/status/ ... 68/photo/1

Maybe the Charnley try was the right decision. From James Childs twitter account via Bilko https://twitter.com/wiganrlfans/status/ ... 68/photo/1

After seeing the forward pass again that Hull KR fans are crying about and saying wasnt forward, I would love to hear their thoughts about the short pass immediately before this one, that was blatently forward, and wasnt given.

Quote: Rogues Gallery "Maybe the Charnley try was the right decision. From James Childs twitter account via Bilko I posted those same photos on the Leeds forum yesterday viewtopic.php?p=17500696&tsmp=1375824966#p17500696

Quote: Rogues Gallery "Maybe the Charnley try was the right decision. From James Childs twitter account via Bilko I posted those same photos on the Leeds forum yesterday viewtopic.php?p=17500696&tsmp=1375824966#p17500696

I'd be more worried at how Hull KR go from competitive to also-rans just because Sam Tomkins played.

Not sure how a still photo is proof or not of a try- the ball could have been planted firmly on the sideline a split second prior to that shot. You can't look at one photo in isolation.

It was never a try in the memory of man but the disallowed one was imo.

A case of evening things up maybe?

And it equally may not have...

The video ref has the 'actual time' of the still available to him, he can check exactly where and when the ball touched the ground, it seems he got it right, well done.