But when the ion field decision is a try imo not enough evidence to overturn it yet they are going on like it was an obvious knock on

It was a decision that went against Leeds, so of course it was a try, as much as Justin Ryders a few years back.

No complaints about Hicks. He gave us a couple of dodgy ones, and gave Leeds a couple of dodgy ones. Wood's try was a knock-on any day of the week. If that goes up as a decision without an on-field call, it gets ruled out.

We played some dumb stuff and got more out of the game than we deserved. For all the online coaches on here slating Finn, we didn't half miss his directing of the game. We looked clueless too often and we needed his direction.

As it happens, we played well for ten minutes, and that might be enough to spur us on. Unless Leeds get two big wins, a draw should suffice now.

As an aside, even if we end up in the qualifiers, I think we'll be the team that gets through it unscathed.

Ash Handley would have run rings round Finn tonight.
Would Finn have put the delicate kick in that Hall had to kick dead?
Finn is not a dry track player, he's a mudbath player.

Are you sure? Our home record against them is a little scratchy to say the least.
Tonight's result doesn't much to calm the nerves that's for sure.

On a side note, Wood must start next week and at Hudds.

Leeds 3rd try was an obstruction, even the pundits said it was.

What about Handley’s try, first a penalty for having a players hand trapped then a referee once again not going to the screen when the linesman raises a doubt. It was obstruction and should not have been awarded but we are use to it. The draw helps us more than it does Leeds

Yep, I'm sure

Randall should stick to loose forward and play wood 80 at hooker.

Nobody can blame Hicks tonight, when we can't even do the basics right when we have the ball and either give a penalty away or cough up possession early in the tackle count in Leeds 20.