It's all irrelevant anyway. Decisions like that make the game exciting according to Eddie Hemmings. And we wonder why we will always be a minority sport.

How blatant would you like your forward passes? Short of donnin a helmet, shoulder pads and Leeds Rhinos shirt and launching the fckin thing down the field how much more blatant does it get?

I appreciate the passion of the moment may have clouded your obvious inability to comprehend the answer I had given to a specific post but, for the sake of clarity I'll make another attempt.

He suggested that a video referee should be able to adjudicate on "blatant" forward passes, all I asked him to do was define "blatant".

By the way, I belive that calling the Dobson try as a blatant forward pass is not debatable, what I was asking for is a definition of "blatant", so we could get a semblance of consistency, otherwise what some may call blatant may not be as blatant to others.

Happy? Or shoudl they just be called "blatant" when they're against us?

if the hands are pointing forward to pass, the blantant forward....not hard is it

Try looking at the Laws of the Game, read the section on forward passes and then come back with something approaching a coherent statement.

Turn on your television. Watch that try again. There's your definition of blatant.

If in further doubt, rewind the footage and watch it again. That's a second opinion on blatant.

If still in doubt, watch the try again, that would be your third example of blatant.

If still not sure of what blatant is, wind the tape back and have another look.

And so on.

Happy? Or should I find one that's seven yards forward and not giving you the chance to slate the team you claim to support?

Even had the linesman had reported the forward pass Ganson would have only done his own thing he doesn't take notice of anybody ,he is a law unto himself

They say that they can't use the Video Ref, as different camera angles give different outcomes. Isn't that the same as onside/offside at the point someone kicks a ball?.
If it was slightly forward we cold shrug our shoulders and say some you lose, some you win.
This wasn't slightly forward though. If we accept decisions like this as a game, we will never be taken seriously. And rightly so.
I'd have like to have seen the Sky reaction if it had been Leeds on the end of that decision. I'm sure it wouldn't have been dismissed as making the game exciting.

Quote: cod'ead "I appreciate the passion of the moment may have clouded your obvious inability to comprehend the answer I had given to a specific post but, for the sake of clarity I'll make another attempt. He suggested that a video referee should be able to adjudicate on "blatant" forward passes, all I asked him to do was define "blatant". By the way, I belive that calling the Dobson try as a blatant forward pass is not debatable, what I was asking for is a definition of "blatant", so we could get a semblance of consistency, otherwise what some may call blatant may not be as blatant to others. Happy? Or shoudl they just be called "blatant" when they're against us?'" Couldn't find one as forward, but this will do as it's the nearest comparison. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSjrPzrS6cU

Quote: cod'ead "I appreciate the passion of the moment may have clouded your obvious inability to comprehend the answer I had given to a specific post but, for the sake of clarity I'll make another attempt. He suggested that a video referee should be able to adjudicate on "blatant" forward passes, all I asked him to do was define "blatant". By the way, I belive that calling the Dobson try as a blatant forward pass is not debatable, what I was asking for is a definition of "blatant", so we could get a semblance of consistency, otherwise what some may call blatant may not be as blatant to others. Happy? Or shoudl they just be called "blatant" when they're against us?'" Couldn't find one as forward, but this will do as it's the nearest comparison. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSjrPzrS6cU

OK, I appreciate that I may be talking to the terminally stupid here but there MUST be a clear definition. If you decide that the definition of a forward pass is the one that led to the Dobson try, then fine, that's what we'll use. So anything that goes equally or further forward than the Dobson try is forward and anything that doesn't travel as far forward is not forward. Is that what you are trying to say? Because if you are going to make changes to the way a forward pass is decided upon and adjudicated, then you'd better make sure that what you suggest is better than what we currently have. So far all you've managed to do is convince me that your argument is, like yourself, stupid.

foreward passes are a blight on the game.some passes i see let go make the game a laughing stock.

Fooking unbelievable , im in a state of shock
Ganson you are a

The ref ask did the ball go forward from the" HANDS "

How about this then... if the player in possession of the ball throws the ball forward, and he isn't Kevin Sinfield, then it's a forward pass?

You can write whatever definition you like, that was among the most blatant forward passes ever seen tonight. But you carry on blaming your own team if you like.

Why? If, in the opinion of the video ref, there is sufficient evidence not to award a try then it isn't given. If the camera angle is such that the video ref can't tell then the try stands.

FFS how difficult is that. It cuts out the rank decisions and leaves those that are borderline.