I think it's a harsh but fair call from the video ref, you can see the hand on Brough so it is fair for me. I think the Huddersfield try disallowed for obstruction was very harsh, no video ref it would have been a try; lucky for Leeds in the end.

But it came after Hudds were incorrectly awarded a scrum after Crabtree knocked on so not that lucky really.

Didn't ground it anyway!

Suspicion of a forward pass too (although I haven't seen replay - just going on what I saw at ground)

Shouldn't have had the scrum anyway so you can give over with that

But equally, two wrongs do not make a right! The whole interpretation of the obstruction law is ruining the spectacle of the game but equally that is being in turn driven by a video ref system and procedure that is in desperate need of an overhaul. It is no longer fit for purpose. There should be a crisis meeting and a new video ref procedure agreed between officials and coaches. I would suggest we adopt the NRL system of the ref making a call either way and then asking for a specific aspect or aspects to be looked at. The video ref can then only look at these aspects and then only to disprove the ref initial call.

I understand from twitter that Silverwood asked Ganson & Bentham to look at everything, this is just not acceptable IMO. I bet had Silverwood been forced to be specific, he might have said on side off side, ward knock on and the grounding. I very much doubt he would have asked them to look at Briscoe obstructing Brough.

Equally, as I understand the NRL system, Silverwood would have had to be specific, so he could not say did either player obstruct each other or just look at instruction prior to the grounding please, he would have to ask did Briscoe obstruct Brough in getting to the ball.

I tweeted after the Hudds obstruction that the officiating of this game was a farce... I stand by that!

That's exactly why the NRL has changed the video ref system. Firstly the onfield ref has to make the call of try/no try and the video ref can only overrule when there's clear evidence the ref is wrong. Its working far better IMO, because previously video refs were clearly looking for the smallest reason to call no try, and it also reduces pressure on the video ref to analyse everything to the nth degree.

Benefit of the doubt also needs to be applied in all cases - again you have to find positive reasons for ruling it out.

Obstruction's gone through several turns of the wheel here. At one stage attacking sides were clearly using dummy runners to interefere with defenders, without necessarily touching them. Then it went to the opposite extreme where in order to make it 'black & white' any and all intereference, no matter how far from play, was ruled out. The problem then became defenders running into dummy runners on purpose, or at least towards them and then throwing their arms in the air when they clearly made no attempt to get involved in actually stopping the play.

The pendulum swung back (thankfully), but I think Phil Gould is right in suggesting that ONLY the on-field refs should be able to rule on obstruction, as they get one view at normal speed, and are best placed to get a sense of what happened.

It was an absurd decision. I could understand it being disallowed on the grounding, even incorrectly. But for it to be for Briscoe shoving Brough is just ridiculous.

The Broughton no-try decision was even worse, FWIW.

The video ref has ruined the game of Rugby League, thanks Sky!

Its not the VR, its how its used. Refs using it as a crutch to avoid making a call leads to all the pressure being on the VR. As a result they will endlessly review and replay because whilst the on-field ref can always stand by what they thought they saw, the VR knows everything they see can - and will - be scuritinised by every man and his dog afterwards.

Thats why the ref should make the call, which must stand unless the VR has definitive evidence to the contrary. They should also ALWAYS give benfit of the doubt to the attacking team, and some issues such as obstruction shouldn't be viewed in slow motion at all.

I think most fans can accept refereeing errors when they're made live. When endless replays still prove nothing then judgement has to come in to play - and that belongs to the on-field ref IMO.

It dont help when the SKY 'experts' question every little thing either. When the ref gave Sutcliffe's try without refering it upstairs last night Stevo was 'absolutely convinced' Moon was offside when tipping the kick back and couldnt beleive it hadn't gone to the VR. He went on about it for the next 2 minutes until the front on shot showed Moon to be about 3 yards onside and the ref spot on.It's little wonder the refs have zero confidence in making decisions in live games when they can get somebody else to take the responsibility.

I've said for ages I would love the entire VR set-up to be scrapped. Some may like it, for me it offers absolutely nothing in terms of enhancing the game. I don't think we played well enough to deserve the win and FWIW the last play "try" is only a point for debate because Hudds' earlier effort was ruled out. So, this aint a knee-jerk rant against the officials made on the basis of last nights game, it's more of an observation on the silly spectacle that the game is becoming. But if the powers that be want to turn the game into a vehicle for endless TV replays, pandering only to those who can't be ar_sed attending games, then crack on.

I like the VR concept, and prefer to see try's ruled correctly as to whether they are one or not. I do however, think last nights example is one where they are badly wrong. It isn't the video ref concept that wrong, it's the guys making the decision, who seem to think they are more important than anyone else now. They can not handle not being on the pitch, so try to influence it aas much has been there.

That decision was wrong (so too was the Huddersfield disallowed one). Had there being a knock on, or an offside, all fair enough, but last second of a game, to win a gam, two guys putting their bodies on it to be the first to the ball, that is exactly what neutrals and people new to the game want to see. Dissallowing that for that reason, was embarrassingly bad for our great game.

Not sure why the Video ref has to be one of the super league refs anyway. No reason it can't be retired ex refs, or championship refs. They all know the rules. There isn't a fitness requirement. We give those selected super league refs far far far too much air time, and their ego's are growing because it.

I've watched a few times this morning and Brough(?) does run across Briscoe IMO

Couldn't agree more. I can't understand why Smith didn't look at it at normal speed? If Briscoe was using his arms WTF was Brough doing with his arm across Briscoe's chest in the first place?

Looking for reasons to disallow tries.

As for the grounding, first look at normal speed from behind showed fingertip downward pressure I thought. Only needs a touch. Certainly as a good a contact as Ryan Hall's try in the '08 GF.

And Briscoe puts his arm across Brough.....

Both competing for the ball for me, try should have stood. If there had been no video ref there it would have been given.

Very good point BB, after game discussion with mates was that very question and for me Silverwood would have awarded that if the video ref was not an option

Irony especially after game at yours earlier this year

It had to go to the video ref because there was enough doubt at full speed about the potential Ward knock-on (which the video then showed wasn't a knock-on), but if Briscoe had hypothetically kicked through from first receiver then had the exact same race with Brough to the line it wouldn't even have gone to Video Ref.

Didn't see it in ground or on tv but did any touch judge make any sign to Silverwood at the Ward 'knock on'?

It's time to force the referees to make decisions. As said above, the remit of the video ref should be to overrule only if there clear and definite evidence the referees decision was wrong. Refs should no longer be allow to simply defer.

WRT to the farce that is the current obstruction rule it's a dilemma. The current application of the rules is ruining the game. However, the only and obvious solution is to simplify it by allowing the referee to use his judgment whether a player was actually obstructed, forget this inside/outside shoulder mullarky. The obvious downside is that the current crop of referees possess appallingly weak judgment and do we want these decisions left at the discretion of this bunch of muppets?

Two wrongs don't make a right...

To be honest, I thought the final try was marginal, and even after a load of replays opinion is clearly divided. I think, like many others, if he'd ruled that Briscoe didn't ground it I would have shrugged. I found the decision to find a penalty in the contact between Brough and Briscoe odd, whatever the Sky team may have said. You could have penalised either of them, you probably should, IMO, have penalised neither.

That said, the Broughton no try call really frustrated me. Granted I obviously didn't want Huddersfield to score, but the pedantry over these sorts of obstructions is getting annoying. Leeds were pulled up for crossing in the first half in a situation where absolutely no obstruction took place as well. It's par for the course at the moment and it is profoundly annoying to me. As I said after last week's game, it does seem to be that refs are trying to disallow tries at the moment. The "look at everything" all to the VR for the Briscoe no-try at the end summed it up. Not "I thought there was a hint of x infringement so look at that" but "take a look at it all and find me a reason to disallow it."

It's now reached a point where it frustrates me as much when it's opposition tries being chalked off as it does when it's Leeds tries. The Broughton try was created not by an obstruction, but by a beautifully executed long pass and searing pace to finish on the outside.

I thought Hudds were value for a narrow win. Both teams were poor at times, and it came down to errors and who capitalised on them best.

The ref was poor throughout, although with the amount of dropped ball etc it can't have been the easiest game to ref.

The Crabtree knock on was unlucky for Leeds, that doesn't mean it wasn't unlucky for their try to not be awarded. If Brough had have been stood two steps to the left the same would have happened, the runner didn't affect play at all.

Actually it probably would not have been, the touch Judge was signalling no try, I don't know why, it could have been the push, or he may have thought Ward knocked on and of course with no VR the ref may have discussed it and over-ruled, or indeed perhaps he just wasn't sure and wanted to refer it to be certain. Whatever it was a tight call that whichever way it went the side who lost out could be considered unlucky.

In truth it was an exciting climax to a match well below the quality both these teams are capable of. Had either team played to the standard they did for example in our drawn match earlier this year they would have won convincingly. There were positives for Leeds in so far as your young lads will have taken a lot out of that. Similarly for the Giants young Josh Johnson has looked very promising in our last two games against yourselves and Wigan. A 19 year old prop doing ok against Peacock and Leuluai is very encouraging.