Cheers Andy.

Briers didnt knock on from the drop out.The one where KL tackled Hodgson was Hodgson lost the ball now KL knocked the ball forward.Delaney was offside so should have been scrum down and was.Briers ran into the path of Hall and made no attempt to go for the ball as he did he was looking at Hall and then leant his body towards Hall should have been 10 in the bin.Would this have changed the outcome of the game NO Warrington were the best side out there much as I hate to say it being White rose through and through.

In the case of the Briers obstruction on Hall, how often did Keith Senior get ten in the bin for doing something similar on almost a weekly basis?

Come to think about it, how often did he even get penalised for it?

Lauaki hit Burrow first, which was ignored by the officials at the time. But yes. I do want all those to be red cards. I believe the use of the phrase 'automatic red card' portrayed this quite well.

Yet the big screen showed ' scrum defence' but the scum was given to the attack, very confusing ??

Wasn't his more making lanes for runners returning kicks. He specialised in that until he got a reputation.

It was never a sin binning. Clever in many ways from Briers.

Sinfield's kicks in general were disappointing but especially those crossfield kicks to Hall. They need to be landing almost on the line rather than 10m out where the defence can deal with Hall or whoever he passes it to once he comes down.

My impression was the penalty for obstruction against Briers was harsh for exactly the same reasons as you've pointed out above. Sometimes they are given, but far more often than not they aren't. As you say, Senior made a career out of far more blatant obstructions and rarely got penalised for them.

Had the penalty not been awarded against Briers, I think there was a fair chance Warrington would have scored from the Joel Monaghan break with 5 more tackles left as Leeds players were struggling to get back.

warrington had the ball and therefore were attacking

It was correct.

Leeds were defending.

Hodgson was driving the ball out, Leeds tackling.

Even Silverwood was confused TBF.

Is that the Cummings explanation we'll be reading tomorrow.

So presumably Silverwood and Bentham use the same term to indicate the opposite - that can't be great for consistency between officials.

Let's be fair that wouldn't take [ithat[/i much to do

My impression was that it was obstruction. While I agree senior did similar for years doesn't stop this being obstruction. He ran into position to get in the way and wasn't even looking at the ball just at hall. Not a sin bin though thought was right decision. Regarding briers knock on, personally didn't think it was a knock on frOm where I was.

The video ref was ruling on Leeds potentially scoring a try so for me Leeds were the attacking side & this would avoid any confusion - I suspect this should have been the case. I could see why some would think otherwise. No big deal & easily cleared up by Silverwood

Unfortunately ‘A body continues in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted on by an external force’
If the ball had been moving forward after hitting Briers it would not be able to change direction again unless it hit something else. A previous ‘momentum’ that it might have had is irrelevant.
That Sir Isaac Newton knew a thing or two about Rugby League.

Clearly I don't know how to post quotes! Serves me right for being a clever clogs.

These type of professional obstructions happen in most games you'll ever watch. My point is they are rarely penalised, hence why I consider the penalty against Briers yesterday as harsh. Leeds got lucky.


Only the one-eyed or blinkered would consider it as such.


It most definitely wasn't a knock on.

Warrington fan is he?

Well all I can say to that is this Newton fella would have known differently if he'd ever bothered to stand next to me on't terrace. Maybe it would have saved him making such an a[irs[/ie of himself.

Well I didn't think it was confusing, but given that you read it differently, it clearly is.

This is not to say that you are wrong, which you are, simply that it has caused confusion.

Even though I understood the ruling without any problem, I agree it can be confusing and perhaps they can use some better terminology in future??

I know "Scrum Leeds" - how hard can it be????

You're so sure I am wrong are you?

The video referee was asked to decide whether Leeds had scored a try. Leeds in the process of scoring that try would have been the attacking team. I'm pretty sure any time the video ref is judging a try the team scoring are deemed to be the attacking team.

Forgive me for thinking you might be wrong.

At the point of "the incident" which the VR was asked to look at, Wire was attacking, Leeds defending.

The result of the VR adjudicating on the incident is Wire knock-on (no advantage to be taken) = scrum defense.

Silverwood also asked if there was anything in the tackle, suspecting a penalty to Wire.

Regardless of all that the video referee is trying to determine whether Leeds have scored a try and Leeds are therefore the attacking team.

Silverwood and the players from their reactions thought that meant the scrum was a Warrington one as well.

Clearly you have misunderstood the ruling, so there is indeed confusion.

Why take it as a dig at you? It's not.

I imagine there may be some change to the terminology shortly, to avoid similar confusion in the future.

I'm not taking it as a dig.

I think you're wrong.

I think it's pretty simple to understand and you're struggling.

I KNOW I am right!

The decision is not a matter of opinion; not a point of discussion; not open to interpretation.

The VR gave the CORRECT decision. Scrum defence - a scrum to Leeds.

I didn't think it was confusing, but clearly it is.

At the time of the incident, Leeds were the defending team.

What makes you so sure you are right when a referee who has clearly performed that role, was unsure.

In all cases I've seen before, regardless of how the ball came to them, the team in the process of scoring were considered to be the attacking team. It would be mad to view it any other way