TBH brough should have had a penalty against him for grabbing the guys head/neck in the tackle anyway.
Where exactly would you expect a player in this scenario to roll away to? By staying where he is he's likely to be impeding less than if he tried to move away in this situation IMO. If Jones had attempted to take up the ball and was impeded then yes a penalty should be awarded- but he threw the ball forward and made no attempt to run the play. Surely in that case the first infringement was the ball being thrown forward. As someone has pointed out at a quick ptb it's sometimes the case that a player is left on the floor- are we going to therefore give a penalty every time- because I'd bet anything if jones hadn't been unsportsmanlike in his approach a penalty wouldn't have been on anyone's minds!

I agree with you on Jones. It was a deliberate knock on. Had he chosen to run forward, no doubt he would have "tripped" over Brough.

It is a difficult one, but like a lot of the decisions they are calls based upon a player's actions. Take the Leigh one, where the Leigh player passed to the Cas player. The Cas player was standing in the attacking line. If it becomes the norm that they won't be penalised, players will loiter with their arms in the air, acting all innocent.

Perhaps the way forward is not to give penalties where a player is making a genuine attempt to get out of the way AND it is felt that the player sought the penalty rather than promoting the play. It is similar to where the hooker runs forward knowing a player hasn't got back the ten. It is only an infringement when the player can't resist temptation and tackles the hooker. If he continues to make his way back, it isn't a penalty, however much he is shoved in the back by the hooker.

Yeah but then you have an incident like Huby in our game, tackles from behind & then a fast ptb means he is automatically offside. Think he should be allowed to keep still if getting up would impede attacker

My comments were only about the Wakefield game.
The incident in Huddersfield was just ridiculous.

Again I'd agree with the roll away being given the benefit of the doubt but players don't do that. They roll off the player and try to get onside. That effectively impedes the attacker.
If you are beaten in the ruck you need to roll off the quickest way and if that puts you out of play that is your fault.

I think that if the player impedes the play of the ball or the dummy half being able to collect the ball then it should be a penalty for interference. I also think it should be a penalty if the ball is passed backwards into a player who is in an offside position. However if the ball is passed forward into a player then it should be a penalty against the player who has passed the ball.

(I think that makes sense)

You'd end up with about 10 penalties a game for it, just look at how many times there is a defender left in back play at the PTB, nothing to stop dummy half picking it up and passing it backwards into the man on the floor.

I think the need to distinguish between if a defender is interfering or not - if he's on the ground, not in the line of passing then he should be ok and not be able to be used as a penalty milk.

EDIT**** - RFL response

Voila!

He kicked more than one penalty from a deliberate play the ball onto a defender didn't he

And neither were as blatant as the Josh Jones example, which seems to have been the catalyst for this contrary announcement - that directly contradicts Ganson's initial support for Childs' decision.

I'm glad they've provided clarity - and I hope the execution of it is handled properly and consistently; and bigger picture, get out of the habit of defending a referee decision as a default position - supporters would respect the process more, if they'd been honest and said "yes, that was against the spirit of the game and Mr Child should have penalised it."