We were talking before the game on Friday and one of the comments regarding Ganson was that, "he courts controversy, winding up fans, players and coaches alike"
Over the weekend this has become even more apparent than ever. He revels in the unwanted attention, which seems to inflate his already zeppelin like ego.

Is itnot time to bombard the rfl at Red Hall about the p@ss poor ref standards .
That they are killing the game off.

Possibly a slight drft off topic but since when did the referees decide that allowing holding down at the tackle was preferable to a massive penalty count. Per radio humberside (not the most reliable source I know) there has been a directive to reduce the penalty count to encourage free flowing rugby. Surely the way to encourage free flowing rugby is to stop holding down and if this means massive penalty counts until the teams get it through their heads that this style of play will not be tolerated then so be it. The way we are going we will just end up with teams packed full of massive forwards and all sides will revert to 5 drives and a kick. Alternatively we could always start allowing rucks and mauls as well, and while we're at it why not have lineouts too!

I've just had a look at your game on Friday on the SLTV site, tries 1,2,4 & 5 all came from direct P.O.T.B's that never touched the players foot when playing the ball. Considering the other try was direct from the scrum I think this shows the size of the can of worms that would be opened by disallowing a try for incorrect potb. I imagine it'd be over 50% of all tries scored that would be disallowed.

I have no problem with the ball not actually touching the players foot as long as the player actually makes an attempt to play it. In this instance the player did neither so it would have been fair enough to disallow it IMO. As for the final "try" what a joke of a decision that was but we should be used to those by now I suppose.

I'm sure the ruling by Cummins a few seasons ago was that as long as the player made an attempt to play the ball it was fine.

The whole potb debate is a farce, as wilf said is a brief waving of the leg sufficient or do you have move in a backward direction or is just thinking about it good enough!!!

For me the rule is clear, it says play the ball backwards with your foot, unfortunately it's rarely ever done and unless the ball is dropped or flung backwards / sidewards its never pulled up.

No, making an attempt to play the ball with your foot is enough and easy to spot. Simply stepping over the ball is not making an attempt and should be penalised IMO.

sent email to Red Hall on Monday re video ref's poor showing !! they have read it as received a read receipt but as yet no reply I won't hold my breath, as said on subject in posts one element that upsets fans of all teams the V Ref must have a better screen than HD as they see things of which I haven't ...

But making an attempt to play the ball and missing it is against the rules, the fact is if we are to accept what you and Cummins say then why not change the rules. Cummins commented on what he thought refs should accept a few years ago but thats not the rules and whilst this ridiculous,Referee's interpretation' situation prevails they will do as they like when they like at a play the ball. They have to change the rules or stick by them as they are written, at present they use the rule when it suits them! When Murrell scored the play the ball blatently broke the rules of the game but because the refs have painted themselves into a corner it was allowed to stand despite controvening the very regulations of the game!

just imagine what a new comer to the game who had learned the rules to understand what is going on is going to make of that decision!

Too much power and descretion on too few people I am affraid! Its an almost incestuous alliance of the full time few, with no apparent career structure and an apparent closed shop!

None of them were from knock ons over the line though

I agree, maybe they should say aslong as the ball goes between the legs or something of the like. If a player attempts to tap a penalty and run he would be penalised if he never 'tapped' it properly, making an attempt at 'tapping' wouldn't be deemed adequate in that situation. Playing the ball is the same only to another player therefore he must make contact with foot to ball. The fact it never happens seems to be overlooked.

I've not looked back at every try from this week but going on both the FC game and the KR game nearly every try would be disallowed if the VR went back to the point of PTB.

There are a few points here:

1. the video ref must follow the rules to the letter
2. the video ref checks what he asked to check. I'm not sure he was asked to check the ptb - I think it was Phil Clarke who mentioned it during the replay. Was he not just asked to check the obstruction at the ptb and the grounding? As you say, checking ptbs would result in most tries being disallowed (particularly when most are played a yard or so in front of the mark)
3. he used benefit of the doubt for a try for Rovers but not for Cas. In neither try was it absolutely clear that the ball had or had not been grounded. There is a balance here that he seemed to ignore.

Could be wrong but a video ref can only go back 2 moves and what the ref ask him to look at