I'd hope we can all agree it was confusing and trust the RFL will learn from this avoidable debacle and introduce some clarity in future rulings via the big screen.

Something like GET THAT IN TO YA or DID YOU SEE THAT or GET UP YOU SOFTCOCK - SCRUM TO LEEDS

Look you are clearly struggling with this, regardless of how straightforward it is.

Don't worry about it - I am sure there will be actions to clarify the terminology going forward and thus avoid any future confusion.

Are you sitting in your chair, with a smug look on your face reading out your posts in a condescending voice? Yep, thought so.

I think it is fairly obvious. In any try scoring situation the side scoring the try should be deemed to be the attacking team. In the same way you think it's obvious so do I.

Leeds were defending when the incident the VR was asked to adjudicate on!

The correct restart of play from that incident is scrum defence.

Leeds never became the attacking team in that phase of play, because of the offences (Wire knock on, Leeds knock on/potential offside).

The double knock on occurred with Leeds defending - play ends and the decision and terminology is correct.

I'm sure if you look through history you'll find incidents where it has happened differently to how you describe.

This is a pointless argument anyway - the fact is the decision and outcome was the right one.

From memory - Cas v Leeds this year if anyone has the game on tape. Leeds knock on in an attempted tackle and from that score a try.

Video ref decision = scrum defence.

No - Andy is right.

The VR was NOT asked to adjudicate the incident where the ball came loose, the VR was asked to adjudicate over the try, this means that Leeds were the attacking side. The VR referred to the incident where the ball came loose to see if the try could be given. At the point the incident took place Leeds were the defending side BUT as Leeds were the last team to be in attack then they MUST have been the attacking side.

Simples.

I wouldn't bother. You'll only be sneered at and told you are wrong repeatedly. I hope someone has that Cas game still to back me up as I'm starting to doubt myself now!

How can I explain it in any simpler terms?

Leeds were not legally in posession - they were the defending team - they were not "the last team in attack" - the game, as correctly adjudicated by the VR, had stopped by then.

Why is it so hard to follow?

If memory serves me right, in the other code, their video ref refers to the teams by the colours of their shirt when he gives the decision verbally to the on field ref. So, scrum pink would have been the call yesterday.

Tell me where I have sneered at you or been smug, as you have put it.

I have tried to expain the whys and wherefores, but you don't want to, or are incapable of listening.

But hey, forget it.

Well, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, you will see the terminology changed in the near future, to help remove the unnecessary confusion.

You've taken a high and mighty "I'm right and you're wrong" view throughout. You have repeatedly told me I am incapable of understanding something simple.

It's not that I don't understand - I just think you're wrong and that many times the video ref will have referred to teams the opposite way to how you claim to be so obvious.

One example being Cas v Leeds earlier this year. I've looked at the highlights package on youtube but it wasn't in there. I hope someone has the match in full.

Not being high and mighty - I am telling you what the ruling is. Merely informing, educating, helping you. Teaching, if you like.

Let's try it this way...

Wire in possession, wire drop the ball - at this point, play on - Leeds (KL) knock the ball forward also, removing the possibility of playing on further - the play is dead. The last team to have possession is Wire.

Anything happening after that point is "out of play" - hence Leeds were never in possession and were never the attacking team - correct VR ruling is scrum defence.

Does that help?

I understand what happened.

I understand what the ruling was.

I'm also pretty sure that the precedent is that the team potentially scoring are viewed as the attacking team as per the Cas v Leeds game earlier this year

I don't know that incident and we would need to review it properly to see what actually happened.

It doesn't change the fact that the terminology, however confusing, was correct at Wembley.

It probably wont be an issue in the future.

Go have a look then, and I think you'll find you're wrong and that in video referee decisions the team potentially scoring are always referred to as the attacking team.

You are, therefore, suggesting that there was an error in your game v Cas, because the decision at Wembley was correct.

If your optician tells you that you need glasses, do you steadfastly refuse to believe him too, despite all the evidence?

I am simply trying to help you see...

What do you do for a living?

The decision was correct. In a manner of speaking you are correct in what you are tyring to say however in the history of video refereeing the team potentially scoring have always been the attacking team.

Yep, I wear contact lenses instead.

I'm a teacher, you? Not that I'm sure what it adds to the discussion.

So if you, from that position of knowledge, told me that Bloom's Taxonomy was used to underpin the foundations of pedagogy, I would listen to you.

I said I'm a teacher. Not a student of learning or education. I wouldn't even try!

Are you trying to tell me you're a Super League referee?

The video ref when asked to judge if a try had been scored or not had to go back to the tackle on Hodgson.Now in that tackle Hodgson was judged to have knocked the ball forward in the tackle.Then KL knocked the ball on himself imiterial of Delaney being offside.The first offence was by hodgson knocking the ball on so Leeds head and feed.

How did you achieve a teaching degree without an understanding of how people learn???

When deciding who is attack/defence, the VR is looking at the status of the play, at the point that play can no longer develop legally i.e. is dead.

In this instance, Wire knock-on (play on), Leeds knock-on (play is dead) - Wire = attack, Leeds = defence.

Delaney becomes involved AFTER the play is dead and his actions have no bearing on the attack/defence terminology.

Even Silverwood needed clarification, as he didn't know what the VR was actually seeing.

You should see the terminology changed to reflect the team's name shortly in the future, to avoid further confusion.

I'll have the Castleford game archived on Doovde but not that easy to search through however I do have several games on the old Sky+ box and the first one I found to quickly scan has a strikingly similar incident to the one under discussion here.

Leeds playing from right to left in relation to the main camera position. A kick through by Leeds into the opposition's twenty metre zone. A kick return by an opposing back running out of his own left field. A big legal hit by the kick chase team causing the ball carrier to spill possession. A Leeds knock forward by one player, the ball picked up by another stood in front in a now offside position who picks up runs to the line and scores.

Without splitting too many hairs it couldn't really be any more perfect an example to reference yesterday's ruling against for video referee on-screen terminology consistency.

Put me out of my misery then!!!