Please feel free to explain this:

[size=150Unless otherwise stated, the mark is where the offence occurs.[/size

No they shouldn't have. The tackle should have stood, game stopped, and Newton put on report afterwards.

If the ref wanted to put Newton on report, he did not have to give a penalty. There was no need to give a penalty, or point. If he wanted to give a penalty, he should have done it straight away rather than let play go on if he felt it was necessary to stop the game. It was a ridiculous decision and I just can't understand why he did it.

Right! Silverwood saw a penalisable offence, as such he couldn't ignore it. Had Whiting scored from the play, I have no doubt that Silverwood would award the try and then ask the MC to cite the incident or at least mention it in his report.

We can't expect the penny and the bun.

If Silverwood had missed the offence but the TJ had seen it, play would have continued until Whiting was tackled. The TJ would have remained opposite the site of the offence, Silverwood would stop the game at Whiting's tackle, go back to speak with the TJ and then bring play back to the original offence.

What's the difference?

Thats how I see it. I just can't see how taking Hull back 60 metres to then award them the penalty can be right. Rules need looking at if this is so.

So why didn't he do that and just play on from where Whiting was tackled without having to stop the game at all? Why the need to take the play back 60m, effectively rewarding the team that committed the offence? If he has the power to report incidents without giving the Bat-Signal, why didn't he use that power in a situation that clearly warranted it?

So you would prefer him to ignore a penalisable offence, just in case we scored a try? But then award a penalty from where play was stopped or should he just ignore the offence totally?

As I said before, you can't have the penny and the bun. Nor can you ignore the fact that the laws of the glame clearly state:

[size=200Unless otherwise stated, the mark is where the offence occurs.[/size

I'd prefer him to take whatever action was most beneficial to the team against which the offence was committed.



No because that's ridiculous.



If not ignoring the offence means rewarding the offending team then yes, ignore away.



I have no issue with that. The issue I have is with giving a penalty when it was not necessary. As you stated previously, he has the power to cite the incident anyway, without having to put it 'on report', so why the need to stop the game at all if doing so means penalising the victims?

Totally agree! I've been saying this for ages. He has more than earned a long term deal. Why should a player of his quality not have the security of a long deal. I would give him a three or four year contract. No hesitation.

So, you do want the penny and the bun?

If the penny is Newton being put on report, and the bun is playing on from where the referee allowed play to finish (i.e. after the tackle), then I'd be happy with the bun. The penny means nothing to Hull FC or that game in general.

If you can tell me how Hull received any benefit from Newton being put on report, then I'll accept your argument. The ref did not need to give a penalty.

good post!my missus too rates whiting as her favourite player and he seems to come up with the right plays nearly every time.all ahil the 'stilts'

IF...theoretically,a team has broken through fromtheir own half and are seemingly about to score,when a lagging defender punches an opposition player spark out!should the play be brought back to the mark where the offence occurs if the try is prevented on the line????if so,then surely this is an incentive to do something illegal to bring back play and prevent a try