https://www.rugby-league.com/article/32 ... inted-as-a The 23-year-old, a former Huddersfield Giants Academy player, wanted to be involved in Rugby League after playing and would encourage others to do the same. Makes you wonder

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/32 ... inted-as-a The 23-year-old, a former Huddersfield Giants Academy player, wanted to be involved in Rugby League after playing and would encourage others to do the same. Makes you wonder

Both the no try decisions that Huddersfield benefited from were both absolutely correct from a rule of the game point of view, isn't that what we ask for in our matchday officials?.



The Linnett no try was simple - Kenny dowell impeded the defender Gaskell by placing hands on him, the fact that Gaskell proceeded to throw himself onto the ground in a dramatic manner would have had no bearing on the decision to rule whether or not kenny dowell obstructed him, the dive happened AFTER the incident and that alone would have been the ONLY event the official was looking at - whether there had been an illegal contact or not - there had therefore the try cannot be awarded as it was deemed obstruction/foul play so penalty to the defending team although the dive was a shocker it didn't affect the actual event that was judged.



The Mcqueen one was even more straightforward, he lost control of the ball accidentally but the direction the ball took was towards his OWN try line rather than towards his opponents, it didn't touch anyone or anything else so the ball is deemed still in play, McQueen played on and touched the ball down for a try as confirmed by the Video Referee, correctly.



Unfortunately for a lot of fans the match officials judge incidents on the LAWS and RULES of the game and not perception or opinion.



As frustrating as it is both decisions were made correctly based on the appliance of the laws.

I like this bit on that link



I’ve learnt a lot from guys like Ben Thaler and Steve Ganson.