Head injury has knack all to do with it, seems your already in the realms of football. It was a serious injury that required multiple medical staff to enter the field of play including a stretcher. In fact they decided not use the stretcher in the end and just carry him off between 2 of them presumably because "look at me" decided not to stop the game to give them the chance to get set up, this could have made the injury worse if they had fallen whilst carrying him. The really frustrating thing is if it happens in his next game he is just as likely to decide to stop play on that occasion as he has done in the past.

Play is always stopped when a stretcher is brought on to the field thankfully. Except on this occasion of course.

Plenty of times games have carried on only for the player to be stretchered off later. And it will happen again because refs only have a short amount of time to make a decision in those situations. Only a couple of weeks ago against Leeds, some on here were moaning that the ref stopped the game when a Leeds player went down with what at first looked like a head injury but turned out to be something else.
We cannot have it both ways.

Operational rules state that Play should be stopped when a doctor is required to enter the field. This is to protect the player and also the doctor. If the doctor is flattened by a prop and is injured, the game would be abandoned as a game cannot take place without a doctor present.

I don't want it both ways (way hay !)

I want the team of officials (both on and off the field) to see that a stretcher is being brought on the field and to stop the game on the basis that there may well be a seriously injured player to be dealt with. They are all linked up with comms so why would that be hard to do ? I'll pose the question again to you - how many times do you see a player stretchered off the field whilst play is ongoing ? Pretty rare - if ever I would say. The officials are normally (rightly) over cautious.

FWIW I suspect the officials on Saturday would have preferred to have stopped the game with hindsight not because a try was scored (which isn't really relevant) but because a player was potentially requiring a stretcher to leave the field. I don't believe that between them they saw that a stretcher was on which is why it wasn't stopped. That is why I think they were incompetent in this case as they should have been aware of it. There were about 3 or 4 meds/physios on I've no idea if any were a doctor (probably not) but normally I believe the game would have been stopped in that situation.

The severity of the injury was very clear as soon as he went down, the physio came on straight away and signalled that he could not continue. More doctors and physios came on, then finally a spinal board, with play going on for t least another 2-3 tackles. Ample time to stop the game.

As I say, ridiculous. This allowed Wovers to be within 8 points with the kick. Then the forward pass try and kick made it a 2 point game. Cheers, Ganson.

When did Ganson miss tackles, take the wrong option and kick straight down the oppositions throat repeatedly, I am sure it was FC players that did all of those things.

It's worth losing to read muddynuts saying it's the most important game he's ever won!

Did you cry this much when you got your beautiful tattoo?

I can see you're still not understanding the thread topic. It's not the point that we missed tackles, we had the game won and if it wasn't or Ganson we would have won it. I have said that we should have done better defensively at the end, but we shouldn't have been in that position in the first place.

Another who doesn't understand the thread topic.

Was the Dobson try a knock on, yes or no? And how many did you win by?

sorry, you're bleating, the game was there for FC to win, we didn't. Ganson was bad, Horne was worse!

The pass was forward, whether accidental or deliberate and had the game been the other way around, I would feel exactly as you do.

The decision to carry on when Martin went down injured or the stupid drop out that we had to give are even more odd decisions.

However, we will of course take this result. Gonna be a very interesting third derby.

No, although I do realise you mean forward pass, which it was. Marginally.

We won by 2. 14 if we discount the tries resulting from Ganson's ridiculously harsh decision to sin bin Dobson and the VR choosing to ignore Briscoe's shoving McDonnell in the back. And the bounce for Turner's try was proper spawny. Or maybe witchcraft. Either way, setting aside all bias, without the malign influence of the Illuminati, we'd have won 78-0.

You're quite correct Tommy. We shouldn't have let the last try in regardless but the other two tries came from poor refereeing decisions. Martin was down and played should have been stopped and the Dobson try was a mile forward. We were not totally to blame but as I said we should have defended that last set better.