small minded fan of a small club, it must be difficult getting up every morning and realising your wntire existence is worthless.

Played really well for 65 mins away against the champions at full strength.

Great, maybe you could name the bar in the new North Stand (if it either gets built) after it,

I think "Played really well for 65 mins away against the champions at full strength" bar sounds good.

Come off it Dave K, some of you guys and your opinions are totaly bizzare at times.

I make a fair comment on here and I get shot down for it because my opinion differs from the majority on here.

McDermot said the try was controversial, is he a troll or a goon for making that comment also?

Hilarious!!!!

Leeds were at full strength ?

Wow you should mention that some more.

Yep, full strength.

No, but he isn't on here every day having digs about Hull.

I came on here yesterday saying I though you had a great chance against Warrington, was that a dig at FC?

Made comment today about Ganson, was that a dig at FC?

What is full strength anyway?. Been able to pick your team with not one squad member unavailable in that case Seymour O'carroll and Heremaia means hull was'nt at full strength.

Anyway about Ganson i don't think he was so wrong yesterday more is linesmen.The blatant warrington knock in the first half which he tried to give warrington the scrum.Then on the next set the said linesman gave a knock on against Hull when it was a clear rip.
And i might be wrong but do the linesman change sides at half time if so it was the same one who tried to rule out Briscoe's perfectly good try.

Barry? Terry? Dylan?

Were either of them at the game and saw it or have they done what most have, watched the replay? It's his opinion, same as yours is yours.

If you don't like having your opinion challenged, perhaps here isn't the best place for you

Well, you said Ganson is wrong, which leads to you thinking the touch judge was right, which means you thought it was a drop out. So how was it a drop out?

Ganson looked at him (very briefly admittedly) giving a signal that he knew was wrong. You see him also look at the in goal judge (in a better position) who is stood still (meaning he thinks it's a try). Ganson only needs to acknowledge the officials he if feels there is any doubt. He didn't.

You're wrong because the outcome was right. The touch judge made the wrong call. Do you need evidence of that? There's a good picture here that shows it wasn't a drop outhttps://p.twimg.com/Ak7MyIsCQAAwLvi.jpg:large" >

The touch judge was the same one who fecked up big time in the first half when he didn't manage to see the most blatant knock on from the wolves. Ganson listened to him, then had to change his mind when the in goal touch judge had correctly informed him of what had happened. This might have been the reason why he ignored the touchy on the second occassion, although I am not saying it is right.

It is instances like this that make me think that the RFL should look at going down the "officiating crew" route. In the NFL, "officiating crews" are selected before the start of the season. They then work together for the rest of the season and only officiate games as part of the same crew. Only injuries would ever see a new member joining an offcicating crew mid-way thorugh the season.

Surely, the oppertunity for refs and touch judges to work together on a weekly basis could only be a good thing and ensure we get more consistency from the refs.

Im not arguing if was a try or not, my point was that Ganson was wrong not to consult his linesman to get a better idea of what happened. The linesman obviously saw something and Ganson should have taken 30 seconds to at least hear him out. So yes, it was bad refereeing IMO.