Oddly I found that more satisfying than when we won the game last year… stand outs for me were … Lawford… looked good until he was the only distributor left on the pitch… Cozza looked smart and aggressive… Doyle looks a good player… Jowitt looks a class apart.. decent pace from Walmsley… strong defence from Thornley… great promise from Pratt

You don’t put players fitness at risk in a trial game and in 2nd half there were too many players playing in positions they don’t train for, and were undone by some clever dummy half play…

The game has not dampened or increased my optimism…

I was always optimistic but I am more so now after seeing the first half.
We looked well drilled which will be important for us this year.
The defense will be able to squeeze teams out when they come all enthusiastic to beat the big boys. I was a little concerned we might just try and out point teams but the signs are good.

Some great slick passing in the first half and some poor defensive reads in the second probably sums it up for me , plenty to be positive about and plenty still to do , but a great run out to blow some cobwebs off and see how our charges faired under duress . Nothing to get worried about for me at this stage , still some quality sat watching from the sidelines . Will have done the players and coaches the power of good going forwards

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MQADlR1oz_M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MQADlR1oz_M

Need more than passes from a 6, I look at it this way if he is the answer,when Gale gets injured we are in the brown stuff .Friendly or not was a worry when Max went of the attack was none existent in the second half .Got a lot of respect for you , so guess we will have to disagree

But he isn't the answer.
It was a late change after Lino, Gale and Kay all unavailable.
He was simply there to tackle and pass the ball on so others could show their skills.

We are not disagreeing. Hood should not be playing 7.

I didn't go to Headingly, but I did got to Dewsbury Rams v Batley and watched the Chris Kendal show where he penalised Dewsbury 18 times for incorrect play of the ball and Batley not once. Looks like we will have an early season of ridiculous penalty counts due to inconsistent refereeing of the rules.
Why we can't remove some of the additional ludicrous rules that have been added to the game in the las 5-7 years and go back to being a simple game that everyone can understand (including the referees) I don't know.

I can tell you what Mr Kendal told the players was not in relation to the "actual" rules being applied, but his interpretation of the "inference of tapping the ball back" and he only applied this to one team, whereas both teams were playing it similarly. Either tap the ball back with foot or penalty, no interpretation or "inference" required

Leeds had plenty of penalties against them.
I didn't see a penalty against us that wasn't valid

I believe there is one ambiguity and that is make an attempt to play the ball with your foot. It is this that can be open to a referee’s interpretation and thereby confusing for supporters. The penalties we gave away were due to the player rolling the ball back and just making a stride forward.

That is exactly my point, he spoke to the players and told them he was looking for them to at least infer that they are trying to tap the ball, which is open for interpretation, either tap it or penalty, don’t allow one team to better “fake” the play of the ball than the other team, apply the rules as they should be and not left to refs to make judgement calls, much like the 6 again rule that needs scrapping.

But that's not how it works. To decide whether a player grazed the ball will take ages on video.
The refs have to make a call at speed.
All players have to do is aim at the ball before it rolls back. They can't step over in one movement.

It's not that hard to do.