very probably. my mistake

In this country it will probably be the referee who gets the most Sky games so I'll have a shilling on Silverwood.

All you need to be able to do is see what direction the ball is going, relative to the ground, at the time it leaves the passer's hands.

Where it ends up is irrelevant. Where the passer ends up relative to the ball or the receiving player is irrelevant.

Sam Tomkins being too thick to understand that simple rule is more an indictment of Sam Tomkins that it is of the rule itself.

The ball left both Watkins and BJB's hands in a backward direction. Where it ends up matters not one iota. A bit like Sam Tomkins opinion.

It's not a rule of rugby league, pretty the same as gravity also isn't

Is the answer to nothing I have said on this thread!!!

Whether Child made errors or not (and he always does a plenty) as a Leeds fan I can't get too worked up about it when our team was so comprehensively out muscled for the entire game.

I'd like to give a fekk about Child's decisions but can't stop myself from obsessing about how dominated we were 1-17. When that stops being my focus of attention I might find time to moan about Child's inevitable ineptitude.

Now, if anyone can find a way for me to blame Child for Leeds markers allowing Monaghan to skip accross our line or a way for me to blame Child for the massive gaps in our defence I'll happily give it further thought.

Fair enough and well explained. I'm not sure how officials are to be expected to measure that initial angle of the pass in every instance and in a split second. Where the ball ends up is usually (but not always) an indication of what direction it was aimed.

Obviously you were all at the game and wouldn't have seen the tv coverage but for your information, Sam was asked to give an opinion as an expert summariser. Maybe he is thick. He never comes across as that to me.

Like me (no GCSE Physics granted, but a degree and several post graduate qualifications) most fans and players understand perfectly if a pass is forward without having to apply Physics.

I wasn't at the game but Stuart Cummings also gave his opinion during the broadcast. He is an experienced referee and former controllers of referees and he didn't think it was forward.

If you're relying on those qualified to make such judgments from the broadcast I'd have thought Cummings was more qualified than Sam.

I thought it was forward btw.

I was personally gutted by Moon giving away a pen on the 5th! That's as bad as it gets for me. I think they scored off of that set.

I'm still miffed at child not marching Briers. At least for 10. We were well in the game at that point and when the Westwood try was given. As we all know the game is about momentum and big moments. Against all rational those 2 massive moments inexplicably went against us.

Agreed. Stuart Cummings is better qualified to judge.

I'm glad you agree that it was forward. By the way you strike me as knowledgable about the game - do you have Physics GCSE?

No. O level Art and a few swimming badges.

I suppose those of us (you, me, Stevo, Sam Tomkins, all the Bulls fans who stand on half way) without Physics O Level/GCSE will have to find a simpler game - and leave Rugby League to all the physisists. I wonder if Stephen Hawking is available to run Super League?

Good at Physics - not so hot at English though eh Tony?

When I see Ian Kirke selected in our 17 every week by three successive coaches I must admit I wonder if I do have the first clue about the sport I am watching.

I thought it was forward at first showing, because of how far the ball moved forward relative to the ground\. When you look at the replays, and see the direction the ball left Watkins hands, and factor in how fast we was running at the time I can see why it was considered valid. I wouldn't have been distraught if it had been called forward, but can see why its not.

The BOTD rule needs seriously clearing up. Either

A) as has been suggested before, Referee indicates their call & asks for what is effectively a review by the VR of their decision.

I.e. 'When I got there, Zak Hardaker had his arms under the ball, so I believe Westwood's been held up, can you check & see if he did get it down'

The assumption being that, without definite proof of grounding, the call is no try.

This could also be true the other way (assume Westwood had scored) and for other incidents e.g. punching etc (useful for Briers too). Good example of this in a Leicester v Bath Union game that led to two red cards being awarded: [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDG82pyTGdU[/url

B) The assumption is always that a try has been scored unless evidence can be shown of one not having been, so the VR will always need definite proof (e.g. can clearly see Hardaker's arms under the ball) to disallow the try. In which case, the Westwood try could have been given after just a couple of looks because it was obvious there was no angle showing he hadn't scored.

You don't need to understand the physics, just be comfortable that the refs know the rule and how to interpret it. You don't need to understand every facet of the game to enjoy it, or even comment on it, but you can expect to be corrected when someone who does understand them knows you are wrong

Fair post - and do you accept every refereeing decision with such magnanimity then?

All Leeds fans do. We're renown for it.

I mean don't what know you.

Try again...

physicists

eh, can you no raed

There is obviously still a bit of feeling between these two from last years GF when Ablett nullified Briers

I accept they know the rules better than I do. I would only disagree with their interpretation of them. Saturday was a case of interpretation. Many reefs would have given the forward pass on Saturday, but child made a split second decision based on several factors and that decision stands up to scrutiny. If it had been given as forward I don't think we could have complained. Certainly less Black and White than the other two big decisions he got ' wrong'