Dave, I appreciate and fully respect your experience and objectivity here, but having had 24 hours to contemplate it, here is my view of some people's thoughts.

With regard to forward passes and the video ref, if the receiver of a pass is in front of the passer when catching the ball, it's a forward pass. If the video ref can judge on offside from a kick, then they should be able to judge in the position of one player to another.

There are some who have said something on the lines of "if you cannot defend a 14 point lead with 12 mins left...". Does that go for 8 point leads as well? I agree, defending 14 point lead within the laws of the game is a reasonable comment. That wasn't the case yesterday.

You will know from your officiating days, that teams "get a roll on". The Martin injury meant rovers got the ball uncontested, ok, there's one which gives a team hope. Then there is the Marino try. . It completely alters the situation.

Also the non penalising of rovers ruck defence. I lost count of the number of time in the 2nd half that Houghton got tackled by a non square marker, yet no penalty was forthcoming. Add to this the penalties given against us, Westerman having the shear nerve for standing up (I thought the ball carrier had an obligation to respect possession). Then it's difficult not to think there is an issue with the official.

I am afraid I cannot be as gracious as Mr Gentle. I am a fan and I feel the pain of being robbed.

Regarding the Latus try. Why should the game have been stopped?

The game only stops if the prone player is in the ruck.

No problem with that, just unlucky.

Not so. Games are frequently stopped for injured players in back play, especially serious injuries. If we'd taken an interception and broke clear towards the player being treated you can guarantee the game would have been stopped.

Play was stopped twice? today in the Wigan - Saints game

why ? what did he do wrong ?

he could, maybe should have yellow carded Wilkin & McColorum but apart from that he did ok IMO

Not unlucky, unjust. Latus scored the try directly where Martin would have been in the line, so that means we were at an unfair disadvantage. And also, what if say Briscoe caught an intercept and was blocked by
Martin and the team of medical staff?

If we stopped the game for every 'injury' we would end up like football with players going down like Drogba. It was not a head injury so the game rightly continued. The injury was just bad luck as no one was near him when he went down . If he had gone down with cramp would you stop the game. NO.

Unlikely that a stretcher would be on for cramp. Although eventually not used the medical staff bringing on the stretcher should have been the point where the game was stopped IMO. It was bad luck but most of the time the appearance of a stretcher would likely stop the game - very few players are stretchered off in back play that I can remember.

Well, if you're turning your nose up at 'good fortune', then I assume you're not buying 'excellent discipline'? Which leaves what? Some nefarious pact with dark forces? Grassyknollatastic.

Your logic appears to have deserted you in the wake of an undeserved victory. What it leaves is a deliberate policy by Ganson to penalise only one side - something he has previous with.

we never seem to get the 50/50 calls, but we cant do nowt now, lets get 2 points against saints

Not so, a pass is demed forward in relation to the player making the pass and not the flight of the ball and please don't even mention Stevo's (non)momentum rule.



A decision can be made on offside simply because the field and players' feet are on the same plane, something that doesn't happen with the flight of a ball in motion. The only reason that technologies like "Hawkeye" can be used in sports like cricket, tennis and potentially soccer is because the "targets" (goal, wicket or tramline) are a constant and fixed entity. I suppose there might be a case made for such decision to be considered when games are in 3D but would still doubt we have the technology available to ensure little better than the lottery that currently exists.

It was a terrible decision, I have never defended it and nor would I ever attempt to but the available technologies we currently enjoy would bring little, if any benefit for the cost involved. It was a bad decision that is ultimately down to Ganson and Ganson alone, it's not something he can hide from and nor should either he or Stuart Cummings. As I said before, I don't think it will go unquestioned and would expect serious answers to those questions. One reason the Oz refs make the phone call that Gentle spoke of, is to draw a line under the incident and then everyone can move on without fear of future repercussions or any subliminal attempt to "even things up"

Agree offside is completely different to the balls kinetic energy when passed from an advancing attacker however the technology would not be that complicated. The same kind of maths plonks the team logos on the pitch as if the were painted there.

If you track the balls speed forward for the few seconds before the pass then track the catch distance over the time lapsed it's basic maths to tell if it has travelled faster than when carried.

I would agree most of the time, but there are occassions when even TV is adequate to pick up a forward pass. Why would it be a problem to ask the video ref to have a look. If he can't tell then fair enough, the decision remains with on field officials. The point is that we all want to eradicate, as far is possible, the obviously wrong decisions from the game. The fifty fity calls we hope will even themselves out over the season and are part of the game.

bitter bitter bitter bitter get over it you lost because your fastest player couldnt catch super leagues slowest player