After watching the game again I'm not see why hodgsons second was ruled out either so I suppose it cancels it out

i called it as obstruction at the match when everyone else was cheering, just due to the logistics of it. seeing it back, no one was obstructed, no one was taken out and the player rang through the hole.

Should have been a try imo , I thought seymore defused the ball aswell .

Standee will have you for that spelling. and no, he never got near it

My spelling is getting worse the older I get and the older I get the less im bothered

First try i though Atkins pulled back Turner in the air and was not contesting the ball.

Ratchfords try i thought it shouldnt have been a drop out but a tap restart (iirc)

Turner fooked up the Foster one, no qualms on that

Hodgson rightly ruled out for obstruction if letter of law applied

Overall i dont think any decisions cost us the game though

This, sums up the way I saw things.

Certainly. He pulls his shoulders back just as Turner is going to catch it, subtle enough to get away with it but obvious if you know what you're looking for

Best team won though and none of the decisions impacted on the overall outcome

Hull were robbed as usual.!

As the match officials are paid to do

I disagree.

The decision to award Seymour a contract was a game-changer for me. We should also have binned Turner and let Crooks play. After all, he'll be the one replacing.