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.

I've never come away from a game feeling so cheated.

The forward pass was an absolute joke.

And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Latus' try, when Martin was down with his injury. The game should have been stopped. I'm not buying that 'he was not effecting the game', becuase the try was scored down Martin's wing so it clearly did effect the game. We were at a disadvantage because an incompetent, self-obsessed moron.

I said it would be the Ganson show. He absolutley lost us the game.

it's simple. if the passer hands are going forward, and the attacking team colletc it, its forward! i know a few ref's and they said the same....so wakey wakey cod head

If Ganson and his officials couldn't call that pass forward between them then they shouldn't be permitted inside the pitch boundary. And there was actually a stretcher on for Martin (albeit he was eventually end carried off on shoulders) but Stevie decided that playing on was a good option. Add in a 6-0 second half penalty count against and the odds were seriously stacked away from us. And as far as I can see this thread is entitled 'ganson' so it seems entirely fair to me to be discussing only his performance. There were other contributing reasons for the defeat but they're best discussed on other threads with appropriate titles. Ganson had an absolute nightmare end of.

just gutted tonight.feel robbed by an inept performance by ganson once again. a forward pass is a forward pass, its the downfall of our game. in my opinion the ball has to travel backwars, otherwise its not in the spirit of the game. and as for the flat pass, get rid of this stupid statement, the ball has to be passed backwards. hope you sleep well tonight Mr i am the of attention and i love it Ganson!!!!!!!!

if i'd have made that much of a bad call in my job, i'd have been sacked.

still nobody has answered me, will sandracock conmplain to the rfl about the ref after todays game, like he has a few times? yes? if no, i wonder why