Cronus wrote:Me too, but just looked up the International Laws of the Game. Well, guess you learn something everyday. Seems an odd rule though, possession would appear to be a better definition unless I'm missing the obvious reason for it. Will start off by saying that I always assumed that the attcking team was the team who had possession of the ball. That being said there is one thing to bear in mind with the call on Saturday and the Glossary within the rules. The screen never said "scrum attacking/defending team" it said "scrum defence". Defence and Attack are terms "introduced" by the TV companies (SKY) completely separate from the rules of the game. As regards Saturday's call, Warrington had possession at the time of the first offence (Brett's knock-on) so feed to Leeds would be correct call. As indicated on other posts it would be far simpler for the fans if the screen had read "scrum Leeds".

Cronus wrote:Me too, but just looked up the International Laws of the Game. Well, guess you learn something everyday. Seems an odd rule though, possession would appear to be a better definition unless I'm missing the obvious reason for it. Will start off by saying that I always assumed that the attcking team was the team who had possession of the ball. That being said there is one thing to bear in mind with the call on Saturday and the Glossary within the rules. The screen never said "scrum attacking/defending team" it said "scrum defence". Defence and Attack are terms "introduced" by the TV companies (SKY) completely separate from the rules of the game. As regards Saturday's call, Warrington had possession at the time of the first offence (Brett's knock-on) so feed to Leeds would be correct call. As indicated on other posts it would be far simpler for the fans if the screen had read "scrum Leeds".

Got my teams mixed up,

Scrum defence = Warrington feed. Leeds ended up with the ball which suggested either the call was incorrect on the big screen or Leeds won it against the head.

The Kylie Knock was a bit of a 50/50 for me on past decisions. I don't think Kylie played for it, it looked like he only realised the ball was loose after it touched his hand. Then he makes a move to regather it. I’ve seen similar things happen and decisions go both ways.

The Briers knock on looked like it went behind or parallel to him from my position, which was the 40 yard line behind him.

The Wood punch is the one that irked me. He threw a punch plain and simple. He chose to throw the punch, which every player knows can result in a yellow or red card. There didn't look like any need for him to throw the punch, as it just looked like a shirt collar grabbing tussle. It would be totally on him for ruining the game not the ref. Several other tussles happened in the game, which didn’t result in people throwing punches. Every player i’ve seen throw a punch this year has been sent off or binned(granted i’ve not seen every match played;) ). He deserved a binning atleast for throwing the punch imo. From what i’ve seen it doesn’t look like Ablett threw any punches.

Anyway Warrington played better and won the game. They completed sets and had the better kicking and passing game. If Leeds did get the disallowed try and the knock on call i still don’t think we’d of won. Wood going in the bin might of turned the game, but I’ve seen Leeds struggle to take advantage when they’ve got the 1 man over. Taking the 2 points when it was 6-6 was a gamble that didn't pay off imo. Leeds were in a good attacking position and seemed to have the advantage. In similar positions Warrington had the confidence to attack instead of go for the kick. We were still in it 18 points down with 20minutes to go. Still with 10mins to go we could of been down to 9-11 points. An awful pass on the 70th-71st minute when were camped on Warrington’s line finished any hope off.

Re the "punch", the fact is that a crunch match like the CC Final can't be quite refereed as if it was just any old game, sending a player off is an infinitely more serious sanction than in a league game. Plus, these are supposed to be the two leanest, meanest sides having a go hell for leather at each other, winner-takes-all. It is for this reason that the refs tend to (rightly) use more discretion, you only have to watch any Origin game to see what I mean.

Secondly, in my experience the odd dust-up is appreciated by the fans - it generally sorts itself out, and shows that there is some passion about.

The "punch" wasn't much more than a push, it did no damage, and the player wasn't felled, shouldn't have done it but a penalty and a stern word were perfect in the circumstances in my book.

Sending him off for that would put us on a par with soccer, which started off down this "consistency" path years ago and has now degenerated to the farcical situation where a glancing brush to the face with a little finger can count as "violent conduct" and get a player sent off. While his opponent writhes on the floor as if his head had been boiled then steamrollered, and his mates surround the ref in a furious mob, all brandishing imaginary cards.

Again i think 1 biff incident should result in those involved getting a spell in the bin, even in a final.
There should be no fines afterwards, just sin bin sufficient.

If the same person kicks off again in the same game in which he's already been in the bin then he gets a red, it stops the game becoming silly and beyond a joke.

Forget Stevo and his "OH THIS IS JUST DISGRACEFUL" nonsense, FANS LOVE BIFF and these are very tough and rough human beings.

Don't sanitise the game, bring it into the 21st century, why do people think boxing is on the decline and MMA and UFC are increasing?

There have been 7 sendings off this season, 3 in one match. There have been more than 7 punches thrown all season.
For a supporter of a club that has supported Ryan Bailey, Ablett, and Brent Webb through thick and thin I find the attitude of some Leeds supporters amazing. Get over it.

Miss the bit about "binned" and "granted i’ve not seen every match played"? According to the super league site there have been 35 yellow cards this year. Obviously not all of them will be for fighting, but nice of you to focus on just the sending off bit. Also did you miss the bit where i said Warrington played better and would of won even if we got the calls?

And to clarify once again.......at the time of the ORIGINAL knock-on, deemed to have been by Brett Hodgson, Warrington had the ball and therefore, as for as the video screen is concerned, Leeds were the defense.

Again, confusion would have been averted with "Scrum Leeds". The issue many fans had AT THE TIME was that the Leeds player was seen to knock it on, the Leeds player collecting it was offside so why did Leeds get the feed? I dont think anybody in the ground at the time thought that Brett "knocked on". Further review of the evidence....(ie, I watched the game again, will never get tired of that) you have to view it that Brett released the ball and it hit a player coming from in front of him (albeit that player was actually on top of him). In those circumstances, the ball hitting the Leeds player and then going forwards (from a Leeds POV) would NOT have been called intentional knock-on. It was the clear swing of his hand for the ball to knock it away when they all ended up on the floor.

My reaction on the day......"HTF has he given it that way?". Now....."good call Mr VideoRef/Silverwood"

And to clarify to you once again, the term attack and defence is NOT determined by possession of the ball but territorial advantage.

Warrington were in possession but ten yards from their line and were therefore defending.

HTH