TBF I thought his try should have stood. I was of the opinion that his left arm was tucked into his chest and didn't go near the ball to knock-on.



I also thought a penalty try was very generous too. IMO there was no guarantee he would have got to the ball before it went dead-in-goal. Should have been a Leeds pen on the line and a yellow card for Raynor.



Just my views from my seat in the stadium though. Absolutely cracking weekend, suffering badly with man-flu now though.

I remember this and you are correct, it was Greg McCallum making an of himself by not saying, I think the ref got in wrong! The problem we have had with successive ref controllers is that they do fear saying that occasionally, ref's get things wrong and defend ref's without question even when it makes a mockery of the laws.



Of course, I would however argue that the use of the 'would' within this law is very poor because it is by nature too vague. I think that the word 'would' should be replaced with 'in all probability' or even 'in all balance of probability' which is probably even better.

I was there too and was surprised to see Chev's try chalked off, but after reviewing it on Sky+ I think Silverwood got it right but it was just crap luck in some ways. The ball clearly touches his elbow/upper forearm, accidentally of course as he raised his arm to protect himself in collision, and as Leeds can't have knocked the ball on because it was a charge down, he had no choice but to deny him the try.



As for the ball going dead in goal then you are wrong again, it held up and was even gathered by a Bradford player, who was then tackled by BJB after he got up and chased. What it again mate, I think you will change your opinion. I think this is why Silverwood gave the penalty try, if the ball had looked like it was going dead then he would have given the penalty and Raynor would have been in the bin instead

i think the issue some people are missing with the penalty try is the reasons we have the rules, to stop players taking players chasing the kick out.



Raynor never challenged for the ball, he made the challenge on a player without the ball and stopped him scoring. If that decisions isnt a penalty try then Bradford have benefited from breaking the rules. If we dont the get that decision, then every player, on a break, chasing a loose ball will be taken out, any team which didnt would be foolish.



Thats why we have a penalty try.

Fair enough, I'll have a look tomorrow, have to get rid of 70% worth of MM off the sky+ box sharpish anyway, the missus nearly blew her top when she found out 'the Kardashians' only part recorded.

I agree that the ball clearly hits Chevs arm and therefore the correct decision was made. I still dont agree that BJB would Definately have scored, but in all probability he would. Its all symantics of course, but then Shad Royston probably would have scored (we will never know). What is a shame thought is that the video referee cant rule on forward passes, even when they are as clear as Leeds first try. Now I have looked at this time and time again. The pass is made a couple of feet before the line, and the player stops, the ball is caught a couple of feet after the line.........



I know it can be debated to death, but its in the fish and chip papers and the decisions will level themselves out over the course of a season, and no doubt there will be debates on here where decisions have gone against Leeds.

Unfortunately for Walker his left arm clearly contacted the ball and knocked it forward in to Jones-Bishop. As harsh a call as it may be it still constitutes a knock on.



What Silverwood was looking (and looking and looking and looking and looking and looking and looking) for on that decision and the one where Burrow was outjumped for a ball was beyond me. Although Ganson got a chance to catch his breath I suppose.



Just long enough to miss the fact Buderus was offside at the play the ball that ended with him creating the try for Leuluai.

Was Buderus making an effort to get onside before being played onside, which is, of course, the important factor in such a penalty?

And as you will no doubt already know that in itself has very little bearing (almost none in fact) on whether a pass is ruled forward or not.



On the other hand if you want a justifiable gripe there is one to be had on the Leuluai score.







IIRC he has to retire (not literally he's only 32 or so) behind a point in lateral line with the play the ball before being able to join in the attack on that play. If he doesn't (and he didn't) then he must remain out of that play and wait for the next one before rejoining the attack.



Everyone will no doubt recall the final Leeds 'try' of the 2010 season being wiped out on such a call and incredibly that involved the same two Leeds players in Buderus and Leuluai.



For all Sky's wizardry (and it was only on seeing it after the match that I noticed it) and 'expert' analysis they missed sparking a major controversy on that one. They'll be absolutely gutted.

Well of course the law does not use the word definitely either, which is probably a stronger word than would, but in all balance of probability, BJB would have scored and hence I think the wording of the law should be changed to say just that.



However, I disagree that Royston would have scored because irrespective of Delaney's challenge, which he was rightly binned for, the off-load from Langley was too far in front and beyond Royston. Watch this again and Royston was simply not in a position to take that ball and in actual fact Delaney's tackle comes after and almost at the same time Sinfield catches the ball on the first bounce. Ganson did not refer this upstairs because he did not have to mate, Delaney took Royston our purely on speculative assumption he might catch the ball but when you watch it, he was not near enough.



As for forward passes then sending them to the video would be wrong (and indeed that is why they don't), I am not saying the pass in question did not have a hint of forward, just that the laws are correct in not letting them be reviewed by the video for too many reason to list.

I'd need to see more angles on the Delaney challenge to see if it was worthy of a sin-binning. Very unsatisfactory trying to make a call on what was shown by Sky of the incident. If anything I assumed he must have made contact before the ball was released towards Royston. It was either that or Ganson seeing fairies at the bottom of a maul. Understandably I was 50/50 on which was most likely.

Firstly, I need to look at this again because I am unsure of the incident from memory but the law as you have stated above is incorrect.



When you look at the 'Out of Play' law it looks quite clear cut...



[i“Out of Play” as opposed to “off side” 3. Players who are out of play at a play-the-ball (Section 11), a scrum (Section 12), a kick off or drop-out (Section

a penalty kick (Section 13) or a free kick (Section 13) are not put “on side” in the manner described in para 3 above. (Seeappropriate Sections).[/i



...but when you view the appropraite section of the law (as told) on the play the ball, then you see this



[iRetire at play-the-ball (g) players of the side not in possession other than the player taking part in the play-the-ball and the acting half back are out of play if they fail to retire ten (10) metres from the point at which the ball is played or to their own goal lines. Players of the side in possession other than the player taking part in the play-the-ball and the acting halfback must retire behind their players involved in the play-the-ball or to their own goal line.



(h) having retired the distance prescribed in the preceding paragraph no player of the team not in possession may advance until the ball has cleared the ruck. =#FF0000A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.[/i



So tvoc that is the question for debate on Buderus in this try? The Burrow/Web incident, he clearly didn't, so it was pulled back, but what about this one? I will have to go look now...