I'm pretty sure had Mags not just being blind sided by an arm around his face he'd have more than likely kept control of the ball

I can't really complain about the penalty on Mcguire by Mcgoldrick, however that sad excuse of a referee missed head high shots by both sides in the regulation 80 minutes.

I'm always reluctant to blame referees when we've lost - they do a tough job and I don't believe they intentionally favour one team over the other. However its that old chestnut consistency that frustates us fans.

I often listen to surrounding fans calling the ref after he's given a decision against Cas and think to myself 'he actually got that right' but there were a number of occasions yesterday when I thought - must admit I didn't see owt wrong with that, after Bentham had given a penalty to Leeds. But I'll accept that at some points it was happening 100 yds away from where I was sat and so the ref probably had a better view of it than me.

However, there seemed to be a few of those 50/50 calls where he could have awarded Cas penalties but he opted not to - that was the frustrating thing.

That said, when it happens in the heat of the moment and you only see it once I accept you can misinterpret things so I'm gonna break the habit of a lifetime and re-watch on tv a game that we lost just to see if I was mistaken in my opinions.

An arm,my word you must have strange looking body appendages.

For example,Burrow tackled and lifted,horizontal at worst,infact the tacklers "placed" him on the ground,result,penalty Leeds.McGoldrick,tackled,lifted and subsequently dumped on his head,result,play on,conclusion,if the Burrow one was a penalty,please explain to me how the McGoldrick one wasn't.

They were two totally different tackles.

The Burrow one saw Ferres stick his hand between Burrow's legs and deliberately up-end him, beyond the horizontal; he knew he had done wrong, he tried to correct his error but it was too late - his face told the story.

McGoldrick went over through a combination of his own momentum in the tackle and subsequent thrashing around like a salmon, either in an attempt to milk a penalty or to get up quickly; the tackling player had very little to do with it.

HTH.

So how bad does that make Cas? I agree that Leeds were awful, but still good enough to beat the Soap Dodgers.

You mean the one when McGoldrick flipped over Kylie who was on all fours at the time? It's a little different to deliberately placing the hands between the legs and lifting.

As already said, very different situations. That said, I'd probably as soon not see ones like the Burrow one penalised. The rules are clear, so it had to be a penalty, but for me if the tackler realises the error and puts him down nicely, do we really need a penalty? I know it's dangerous, but so are most aspects of the game. In some ways, wouldn't it be good if the tackler was given more incentive to rectify the situation before any harm was done. I seriously doubt that Ferres had any intention of dumping the player on his head/neck.

I agree,I am not condoning any tackle that puts a player in danger,just more consistency on the way they are managed by match officials.

Here we are again talking about a game where an official has had a bearing on the outcome. McDermott said that it didn't make any difference what stage of the game it was, a penalty is a penalty... fair enough.

For all those who still have the match recorded, look at the play the ball when we were putting our selves in position for the drop goal (where Danny Orr runs it in) I think it's the 2nd play the ball after the scrum. See how square the markers are, penalty every day of the week? YES / Is ref going to win the game for Cas in front of the posts? NO / Did the ref bottle what was a blatant penalty decision? YOU BET HE DID. I didn't notice this at first due to the fact the defenders where all rushing about, but I encourage you to watch it and see for yourselves. I have never seen a ref run off the field as quickly in my life. If anyone has got the League Express, there is a picture of Sinfield after he struck the ball.... the ref is already on his bike



Oh and yes....... Am I bitter and is it sour grapes??????? You bet it is.

Since I'm working at home, I've done as you asked. I see what you're getting at, but with a quick PTB and the tackle noot made at marker, I reckon you won't see them given many weeks of the season to be honest. I suspect if you watch every PTB for both sides in the match you'll find plenty of examples of it not being penalised. I fear, in short, that you're clutching at straws a bit.

The attacking team has the right to play the ball as quick as they can. If the markers are not square PENALTY. It's like in football, if a player get's a slight nudge in the area and goes down it's not a penalty, but anywhere else on the field it's a free kick. If were we running the ball out from our 25 and it happened, it would have been given. The fact that it was in front of the posts with 15 seconds to go made all the difference. We had our chance and blew it, but you are looking for consistency in how the game is run and at the moment we are not getting it.

What nonsense. Ref's only penalise players for not being square where they go on to make a tackle/interfere with play (and obviously sometimes a hooker will exploit this and run straight at the player).

If ref's did what your suggesting and blew every time a marker isn't square we'd have a penalty [uevery[/u time a team got a quick play the ball - do you really want see an extra 20 penalties per match??? (Maybe you should go and watch Yawnion instead)

So every time a player breaks a law of the game it shouldn't be penalised?

A player who isn't square has not broken the laws of the game so shouldn't be penalised. (He's technically "out of play"icon_wink.gif

A player who isn't square and then makes a tackle has broken the laws of the game and should be penalised.

Forcing the ball carrier to change direction or avoid the player not square is also breaking a law of the game, in fact the same one you just used.

Eh? If you're not square the ball carrier can run into you and he get's a penalty no-one is forcing him to avoid you.

Here you go here's the letter of the law [uintention[/u is required....

[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. A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.

Penalise intentional interference 10.(g) =#FF0000If the ball is played quickly, all players will not necessarily have time to retire the prescribed distance. They should be penalised only if they intentionally interfere with play – either actively or passively.
[/i

From [urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/11_tackle_and_playtheball[/url

So it IS a penalty if the hooker decided to step around the not square marker - he is passively interfering in the play there.

Well I've rewatched the game on tv and consider the ref did a pretty good job. There are one or two slightly contentious decisions but nothing I'd say he got blatantly wrong.

The 2 Leeds 'tries' disallowed for forward passes in the 1st half were marginal at best. On another day both might be given and you can bet had it been Cas scoring the tries most Cas fans would have been upset with em being ruled off.

The tackle on McGuire at the end was slightly high and justified a penalty though it was a cruel way to lose. But then we should have won the game in 80 minutes and blew it by a couple of silly errors most notably Ben Davies forward pass that gave Leeds the great field position from which they scored their equalising try.

One official who I thought did an outstanding job was the blonde haired linesman. Unlike the majority of linesman who try their best to be invisible he assisted the referee with some very good decisions but without trying to become the centre of attention. He looked suspiciously like the guy who has refereed a few games this season - which might explain his confidence to make a decision as a linesman.

Not sure if you are on about the PTB before the drop-goal attempt (tackle 2) or the PTB for the drop-goal attempt (tackle 3) as both could have been penalised. On tackle 2 Peacock isn't square and involves himself in the tackle. Penalty should have been given. On tackle 3 both Peacock and everyone's favourite player Danny McGuire are stood side by side. McGuire uses this advantage to scoot around the PTB and successfully challenge Rangi Chases as he lines up for the drop-goal.

Good post. Nice to see that someone can be impartial. I think that sums it up quite well. If we had lost, you can bet we'd have been up in arms about the disallowed tries (in reality our inability to convert chances would be more of a concern), but that only goes to show that the decisions evened themselves out over the course of the game. I could argue that we got the rough end of a few more decisions, but to be quite honest, as we won, I'm not going through the entire game picking the bones out of each and every decision.

Yep, the same touch judge who had to point out one of the worst high tackles of 2011 performed by none other than D. McGuire as Bentham had somehow ignored it, despite later penalising a slap on the shoulder to end the game. Consistency?

It was the one before where Danny Orr tried side stepping through the line, but this one is just has good. In regards to the guy from the previous post, saying that they can be not square as long as they don't make a tackle, what a load of sh*t!!! The game has gone now, but it's the fact that it should have been a penalty with would have handed the game to Cas on a plate, but wasn't given.

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Not sure if you are on about the PTB before the drop-goal attempt (tackle 2) or the PTB for the drop-goal attempt (tackle 3) as both could have been penalised. On tackle 2 Peacock isn't square and involves himself in the tackle. Penalty should have been given. On tackle 3 both Peacock and everyone's favourite player Danny McGuire are stood side by side. McGuire uses this advantage to scoot around the PTB and successfully challenge Rangi Chases as he lines up for the drop-goal. img52.imageshack.us/img52/866/20 ... mifina.jpg'" Rather than posting misleading freeze frames why don't you just watch the video [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0137yrl/Rugby_League_Challenge_Cup_2011_SemiFinal_Castleford_v_Leeds/here[/url at about 2h05. As you'll see at every PTB after the scrum Cas pass the ball straight away therefore there's no possibility of a penalty. As for Peacock being involved in the tackle he does so after the onside players make the initial tackle (i.e. he gains no advantage) - read the rules above that's not a penalty.

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Not sure if you are on about the PTB before the drop-goal attempt (tackle 2) or the PTB for the drop-goal attempt (tackle 3) as both could have been penalised. On tackle 2 Peacock isn't square and involves himself in the tackle. Penalty should have been given. On tackle 3 both Peacock and everyone's favourite player Danny McGuire are stood side by side. McGuire uses this advantage to scoot around the PTB and successfully challenge Rangi Chases as he lines up for the drop-goal. img52.imageshack.us/img52/866/20 ... mifina.jpg'" Rather than posting misleading freeze frames why don't you just watch the video [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0137yrl/Rugby_League_Challenge_Cup_2011_SemiFinal_Castleford_v_Leeds/here[/url at about 2h05. As you'll see at every PTB after the scrum Cas pass the ball straight away therefore there's no possibility of a penalty. As for Peacock being involved in the tackle he does so after the onside players make the initial tackle (i.e. he gains no advantage) - read the rules above that's not a penalty.