I'll rephrase my post...

He starts reviewing the clip from Burrow passing it to Buderus (who would appear to be onside if you were to start viewing the clip at that point), before going on to review the grounding.

All your blame should be directed at Ganson.

True. He might also have been calling him a granny beating alco, but I doubt it.

Except wasn't that [iexactly[/i the scenario which preceded Tansy's, shall we say, somewhat dubious, try at the previous MM in Cardiff?

If you check again TT I think you'll find it's Ah Van who grounded the ball and even if Bishop had got their first it would have needed neither a gunshot nor heart attack to prevent a touchdown, merely not grounding a bouncing ball under pressure. Of course that's never happened before so it must be certain that he would have scored, I guess, let's have a penalty try eh?

that's going a bit far IMO, you could say that of any penalty try ever given. who's to say that any potential try scorer isn't going to knock on should no offence have taken place?

Another point, why didn't Ah Van kill the ball by putting his foot out of play before picking the ball up? If it wasn't a penalty try we would have had a tap on the 20 and not a goal line drop out. Irrelavant (SP) I know but just a thought.

What planet are you on?

BJB NEARLY (granted not quite, but NEARLY) beat Ah Van to the ball anyway! Even AFTER he'd been pulled down, he still got up and was only a few yards short of beating Ah Van to it. Had he not been pulled down he would've comfortably have beaten him to it.

TT point was perfectly valid. It's perfectly reasonable for the VR to assume that a professional player would have no problem grounding a ball. If you had to take into account that "the ball might not have been grounded had play continued" you never give any PT ever.

It's a good job the roof was closed or you'd be claiming that an Eagle MIGHT HAVE come down and taken the ball before BJB got to it. Thus resulting in a PT not been given.

I think my new great mates RR & pg have answered that one sufficiently.

I thought they scrapped that rule years ago.

They have scrapped that rule.

I just wondered why we looked incessantly at the Chev Walker incident and the Elliot Whitehead knock on in the build up to another disallowed try, yet the Leuluai try was looked at just a couple of times and was rubber stamped almost instantly, could there be a case for a time limit on the video review? My biggest gripe is the total inconsistency with the decision making by the video ref. Sometimes he keeps looking for a reason to disallow until he thinks he's found one, and other times he seems to just glance at the tape so his coffee doesn't go cold.

pretty fair point imo. Stick a reasonable time limit, 1 1/2 - 2 minutes on the decision and if he cant find something conclusive then benefit of doubt to attacking team. It does seem sometimes that the Video ref just keeps looking until he finds a reason to disallow a try and it looks especially bad when decisions for one team are take longer and end up disallowing tries compared to quick decisions for other team allowing their efforts. And that comment isnt specifically aimed at the leeds/bradford game, more a general observation. Think it was paul cullen or tony rea who once said you can find a reason to disallow any try if you look at it long enough and are strict enough about the rules.

some decisions go for you, some go against you, they even up over time, Bradford were admittedly the better side but at the final hooter Leeds were in front end of, debating the rights and wrongs of officials decisions is pointless, Leeds were beaten in the 2005 GF by a side who cheated (using Moz) and last years WCC when Melbourne massively burst the salary cap, then we had the Tansey try at MM which was an injustice to Bradford but,
some decisions go for you, some go against you.

Moz was a LOAN player from NRL so was not cheating, We followed the loan rules -_-. Melbourne hadn't been found out. Though after the WCC should have been void. Tansey was way offside. This game was a farce at the end, mixture of bad calls (never mind 50/50) and crap defence. Also I think 5 penalty tries in the whole of SL, 2 were for Leeds against Bradford. Bulls have also had most Video Refs decisionms denied with over 60% being Silverwood/Ganson/Klien.... Coincidence? I think not. Officials have never liked us since Northern walked off the pitch against Hull KR.

we breached the cap in 2005 when we won SL.

Sssssssssssshhhhhhh. Don't tell everyone!

Like I said, last sunday Bulls were the better side but the scoreboard didn't say that, also admittedly the Tansey try was a disgrace AND so was playimg Moz in 2005 GF. Say you were the Bulls player who played most of the season only to lose your GF place to Moz, you,d be happy about that would you? That Bull who lost his shirt to Moz was cheated as was the game in general, Moz didn't get paid then? yeah right!!

If a team beat the Bulls in a major final and 'loaned' Billy Slater or Greg Inglis or Benji Marshall then that would be fine would it? I think not.

Like I said blaming refs is pointless and futile, it evens itself up in the end. Bradford were not cheated, they just didn't get the rub this time.

pop quiz time, who was the bull who missed out when Morley was signed?

andy lynch. experience doesnt seem to have affected him too badly since

...bet he was well happy for Moz???

Lynch played 28 games that season, Rob Parker 23 times and Matt Cook & Brett Ferres both 7 times. One of these would have had a winners ring BUT for Noble 'loaning' Moz.

The salary cap was broken in 2005. It's still CHEATING!

aye, he missed out on making the team. didn't rob parker get de registered to make way for the signing too?

The best thing is he probably genuinely believes this!!


Dude, you're giving Bulls fans a seriously bad name. You played really well, had a lot of good points, looked clinical at times, and a decent defence. You only lost by 2 points to a team that were huge favourites and have won the league 4 times in the past 7 years, given that you finished 10th last year I'd suggest perhaps that might be a result that you'd have taken given the opportunity going into the match?! Your new coaching setup and players will take time to gel, but for your first proper match together you had the signs of a real force of the competition and only narrowly lost to, like I said, pretty much exactly the same team that's won the competition 4 times in the last 7 years (without breaking the cap!!).

And what do you do.... "Booo hoooo, all the refs have got it in for us.... booo hoooo". Seriously fella... grow up.

If you actually read my previous comments I clearly state that the lads played really well and we dominated the game. If the roles were reversed you would feel the way I did. However this week we are playing against a more superior team than you so I'm looking forward to seeing how we play and see if we can perform for the 80mins. Also even as a Rhino fan even you have to admit that Royston should have been awarded a penalty try and Raynor should have been given the try when BJB stripped it.

Just like Tansey doing 50m in a second then. CHEATS

Well said Mick Gledhill!

If you READ my post at the top of this page you will see I said giving the Tansey 'try' was a disgrace!!

In that game Leeds didn't cheat you, the video ref did.

In the case of 'loaning' Moz for the 2005 GF the Bradford club cheated, if you believe Moz played for nothing thats your choice, in that year Bradford broke the cap, FACT and therefore CHEATED.
There is a big difference.