Not a chance bud, trust me, no-one has heard of you in Richmond, speaking as someone who spends quite a bit of social time there, they haven't got a clue you exist, its unfortunate for you but you need to move asap

FWIW the decision was the correct one I felt, although in the context of the game I wouldn't have been surprised in the slightest had that scrum gone the other way. I thought Catalans got away with murder with regards to slowing the game down and can't remember the last time I left a match feeling that frustrated and angry after a win. Had they been punished for intereference and laying on as they should have, they'd never have got hold of the ball - 5 and 6 second play the balls are not the way forward for this game. Still, Cas rose above it and played some great rugby to win the match where in previous seasons we'd have just been dragged into a scrap and thrown it away.

The crowd was crap to be honest, numbers wise anyway. The atmosphere in the stadium was electric and actually better than it's been for a long time. One thing nobody seems to have considered when talking about people saving money, is that Cas is a largely working class area and will bear the brunt of the recession and current austerity measures more harshly than some more prosperous areas. That's not an excuse, just a bit of simple logic really. I too feel that Wheldon Road's ageing state is a factor in our attendances in general, and once the new stadium is built, we'll see an overall increase.

Going back to the original point of this thread, I thought Bentham's decision was correct.

Sa was running towards the player with the ball in the knowledge that he would likely kick it and in doing so was 'pressuring the kicker'. He understandably turned as he thought the ball was about to be kicked but the fact remains he was there to try and affect the outcome of the kick, had he not been there the ball would have travelled upfield as intended by the kicker.

I have seen many occasions when the ref has given the decision the other way but on each I've disagreed with that decision.

This is an area though that would benefit from clarification by the authorities.

The decision was correct according to the interpretations we have been told through our Societies for the reason you state. If anyone has seen an example contrary to this that is on video it would be interesting to see it.

Eh? You were the one who mentioned the attendence at the match! I concured. And it led to some moron relating local population to the amount of people at the match. He is the only one that looks silly tbh.

I don't see why relating the size of the crowd to the size of the local population warrants calling me a moron. As a forum moderator you should know better than to resort to personal abuse. Were you bullied at school perhaps?