Not only a great fan but considered by some to be the father of the modern game. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) established the theory of gravitation. Before this the concept of the 40 -20, for example, was unknown since the player couldn’t be sure that the ball would return to earth.

have you, by any chance suffered a blow to the head recently by a very large apple ?

A Bramley!

Which direction were Briers hands moving before he contacted the ball, ie towards the Leeds tryline or away from the Leeds tryline?

If towards the Leeds tryline (and I'd be surprised if anyone would doubt that they were) and considering he made firm contact (and again that seems to be the case) then the liklihood of the ball being knocked forwards (in RL terms, if not in Sir Isaac Newton terms) appears high.

I'd be surprised if referees rely on line markings for knock on decisions anymore than they rely on them for forward passes. There more likely to look at the direction of travel at contact and rule on that basis. On many occassions knock ons are given when the ball hits the ground clearly behind the player deemed to have knocked on and on many other occassions they don't. They're often 50/50 calls where sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. I imagine Briers expected a knock on call just as he will have done on another missed knock on in the first half with the scores tied at 6 all.

It was his day, next time could be different.



Are you saying the specific decision in the Leeds - Hull game I highlighted lead to a discussion about the on-screen terminology used by video referees?

I would find that an odd thing to do as the way it was used in the Leeds - Hull game didn't appear to cause any confusion among the officals, the players, the Sky commentary team or any noticeable disquiet amongst the fans. And why would it when everyone appeared to understood and expect the ruling.

The reason there's discussion about the Wembley ruling now is because =#0000BFvirtually nobody understood it at the time and that's because Bentham either made the wrong re-start call or pressed the wrong button. It confused the on-field referee, the players, BBC commentary team and even the Leeds coach judging by his after-match comments. Silverwood is heard having to explain to the players that the graphic was wrong.



I suppose it depends on your understanding of the game but anything that can make it clearer to the casual viewer (even those in oh I don't know somewhere like ..... Barnsley) is a change I would welcome.



There's only been one that I felt tried to engage the supporters, explain what the purpose of the referees are and was willing to discuss their failings publically and that was Greg McCallum.

très drôle !

No.
Agreed.
Agreed.

Will you stop talking Sense

We've now been given two, as near as makes no difference, identicle examples where one flashed up (Leeds - Hull game 6th July 2012) =#0000BFNo Try, Scrum Attack and the other (Leeds V Warrington 25th August 2012) went with =#FF0000No Try, Scrum Defence

One caused no apparent consternation on or off the field while the other caused plenty both on and off the field including a part of this thread.

So which video referee got it right - =#0000BFIan Smith or =#FF0000Phil Bentham

Think it was a Cas game actually. Was discussed as a scenario at refs training. Subsequently decided that attack/defense is determined at the point at which the play can no longer develop legitimately. Hence the Wembley call was correct. Previous calls are not necessarily incorrect...just different. We never criticise!

It's confusing to the people that matter though - the fans. Team names should be used very soon.

I was at the game and thought Briers initially knocked on,managed to watch the game last night and thought it was a knock on. Only after the game when they showed the white and red line it clearly shows it went backwards..... how many titles and wcc have Leeds won by wrong decisions?????? Get over it, there will be plenty more before we all die

Was it the one on the 2nd March 2012? What was the circumstance of the incident in question and what was the on screen message from the video referee - 'scrum attack' or 'scrum defence' - and is your view that the call was correct or incorrect?

Or given your next passage, is your view that the call was correct irrespective of the actual words used on the screen?

As it was a case study I imagine you'll have notes or if not still be able to re-collect some of the detail. I'll have a look anyway, once you've confirmed the game to see if there were any video rulings I didn't understand.

Not sure it will add anything over and above the more recent example I've detailed from the Leeds V Hull game in July which presented an effective doppelganger situation to the one on Saturday that caused the confusion.



Illogical.

Unless there has been a change in the instructions given to video referees between the 6th July 2012 and the 25th August 2012 both Ian Smith and Phil Bentham cannot both be correct when their on-screen restart messages are exact polar opposites.

Blimey, I'll have my secretary pull the minutes!

In both games the DECISION was correct.

We are discussing the re-start terminology used onscreen. Following the Cas game, it was decided to be termed as I have described, hence Bentham was correct. Whilst the other game, did it differently, it wasn't wrong at the time. It would be now.

We don't criticise our MO's.

Please do as it would help to know which incident has caused this confusing change to be made. A referee looking and sounding nonplussed by a colleague's decision while in front of the games biggest domestic TV audience is not the look I imagine the RFL are after at a major showpiece event.




Who is we in this instance?

If both Ian Smith and Phil Bentham were correct there must have been a change in the instructions given to video referees sometime between the 6th July and the 25th August.

When was this change made? Was the change publicised? Did Richard Silverwood's copy get lost in the post?

When the change was made did no-one think, why are we even using scrum attack or scrum defence, why not just use scrum <insert relevant team name> to indicate which team had the head and feed.

I never realised you had to make life this hard when you're a referee.

I don't agree with not criticising. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. It's what makes improvements.

I personally was under the illusion that the team who scored the try were the attacking team (which was Leeds in this example). In replays where both teams are attacking at some point, it's just confusing. I don't see why they don't just have the team names. It's just as easy, and yet so much clearer to the supporters.

Its probably a software thing

Was stood outside St. Joseph Social Club in Wembley on Saturday and spotted a load of young lads in Nottingham Outlaws shirts - don't suppose you were with them?

Shocking decision. A huge momentum changer as agreed by all the pundits.

Both the Briers opbstruction and his knock on from the drop out were, IMO, technically correct but the sort of decision not given 9 times out of 10.

On the Leuluai knock on after demolishing Hodgson (legally - different to the Moa non-tackle in that Leuluai made contact with Hodgson's shoulder, and used his arms properly) - I'm not convinced at all that Kylie made any deliberate attempt to play at the ball (only he knows for sure), so no knock-on for me. Is Delaney still offside if the ball has just hit Kylie accidentally?

Anyway, all academic points. Wire were comfortably the better side and fully deserved to win.

Actually, the decision I found most annoying was the one when Wire were penalised for putting Ablett (I think) in touch about 3 nanoseconds and no change of momentum after the call of held. Didn't think he should have called held to begin with, given that he did, there was no chance the tackle was going to stop or that the tacklers would have heard him. Couldn't/shouldn't he therefore have brought it back for the play the ball where he called held?

Thought the officials between them were pretty poor in general, Wire copped a couple of duff calls. We probably copped a few more, which is likely to be because we were the side under pressure more of the time.

Were they in kit (white shirts, with green and blue chevron) or in blue and orange t-shirts.

The lads in shirts were out under 14s, and we did catch up with them at one point. The t-shirts were the mens team, who I was with.

Simple answer to both questions posed in terms of try/no try and knock on/play on are this. You've got 6 tackles to attack/defend with, aim up and get on with it. It was something Andrew Johns said the other week when dismissing the idea of the 'captains challenge' being trialed in Austraila.

Both decisions though, were correct - as the VR, and the replays clearly demonstrated.

Leeds had a set of 6 within 20 metres of Warrington's line after the Hodgson knock on. They didn't score from it - Ablett put into touch from a Hall knock back?

From the Briers 'knock on' didn't Warrington force a further drop out? I can't remember, but if we scored it was on the 6th tackle and exploited poor defensive decision making to create the overlap for Riley to go in, then Atkins after. Hodgson scored from the uncertainty created by the previous two.

The Paul Wood punch - Ablett hit out first but not as badly - or clearly as Wood. Correct decision made on the pitch, and one that would have been made in any other game. Wood likely to cop a deserved ban.

They were just kids in their team shirts by the looks of it.

FYI......yes. It doesnt matter if its intentional or accidental. A point in fact the Warrington try in 2010 when the ball bounced of the Warrington player's backside and we went the length of the field in a couple of tackles. That WAS one the officials got wrong.

Wouldn't disagree with most of that (although I'd be happy for Wood not to get banned, not a lot in that one). I don't think there's much wrong with debating decisions though. It isn't the same as debating their influence on the outcome. Wire certainly made more of their chances when they came. They also made more for themselves.

My only problem with your line of argument is that if you follow it to it's logical conclusion it rather absolves referees of responsibility for making the right decisions. Which doesn't seem right.

Cheers. Definitely the right call then.

As with the 2010 one, it didn't really turn out to matter too much in terms of the overall outcome anyway!