Shaw was carrying the ball and lost it, Leeds was a grubber that Keinhorst got a finger too.

HTH.

Shaw didn't lose the ball but, don't let the facts cloud your judgement.

I didn't see any obstruction but agree with the grounding, ridiculous.

His hand hit the ball while it was on the ground. What more do you want? I dislike Leeds as much as the next man but, that was a try.

Sorry worded it wrong.

Personally don't think he lost it but that's how it was 'judged' but it's a different and incomparable incident to the Keinhorst one tonight.

A guy carrying the ball having to been judged (rightly or wrongly) to have lost contact is a different scenario to a player putting a hand or finger on a loose ball and thus shouldn't be compared on here by people wanting to rant.

So, you thought tonight's was a try?

Keinhorst's finger was bent at 90 degrees as it hit the floor. Indisputably a try.

Of course. I am amazed how anyone can say it was not a try!

Yep. The only issue on that try was the possibility of obstruction. The grounding was clear.

The RFL always want more match officals. If you think you can do a better job than those doing the job at the moment do a course.

I don't think a slight brush of the finger should constitute a try. Saying that, Hudds wouldn't have scored at the other end if Hall didn't knock on. All in all, it was an intriguing bottom of the table clash, and it showed.

most Leeds fans near me on the western terrace were very surprised to see that given, but that's life.

I thought it was never a try until you saw the slow mo replay. clearly showed there was downward pressure.
it shows why we need the video ref, albeit when they do their job properly

In th two games I watched this week there has been far two much whist made even worse by the fact that Hicks pretty much all came in the first half, and Silverwood only decided to penalise on team per half.

Silverwood proved in that game why he's a poor ref. Repeatedly penalised Leeds in the first half because he got annoyed with Hardaker, then did the same to Hudds in the 2nd half because he got annoyed at Brough.
He can't stop his emotions getting in the way.

Silverwood is especially frustrating because he can have good games. Just seems he gets out of bed the wrong side some morning and decides to be in the mood to ruin games.

for the second season running, thaler allowed tautai to stay on the pitch after a spear tackle on a fc player, no on report, no cards not even a sin binning!

no doubt he will be hauled up by the rfl and pick up a match or two with no benefit to hull fc whatsoever and you wonder if some refs turn a blind eye to some teams

Don't like to harp on about NRL and SL difference but the gap is so wide you cant ignore it.SL refs so inconsistent, hence this thread.Too many games being decided by the standard of the refs,it needs addressing big time imo.

I think there are big issues in the referees department, mostly stemming from underfunding from grass roots up to SL level.
We don't have enough refs & touch judges and the ones that we have aren't paid enough and not trained/developed well enough.
There are huge issues with how refs are developed from a young age. Firstly they're put in to reffing games at too young an age in the amateur game. We have refs refereeing their own age group. I'm of the belief refs should always be at least 2 years older than the age group they're reffing. Also, as we've heard previously from Roy Haggerty, the issues surrounding pay, expenses and how refs are treated ie lack of backup/support from the RFL and refs societies. Then add in the ridiculous, backward and unnecessary violent & intimidating atmosphere many refs experience in the amateur game from any number of s who are bizarrely allowed to operate and attend amateur games, then it's no wonder we have trouble recruiting and keeping referees.

Ontop of that I think we need some kind of 2nd ref. Maybe not in the NRL sense of 2 full referees, maybe have 1 ref and 1 "roaming touch judge" to help the ref make decisions and provide him and the players with information. The game is too fast and too highly scrutinised now for 1 ref in my opinion.

The biggest most noticeable difference and this has a lot to do with the pocket ref....5 seconds is a slow PTB in the NRL, over here 5 seconds is lightning!

Was paying attention to the clock in the Brisbane game, more often than not Brisbane were getting the ball played in 3 seconds and Parra in 4. Anything longer and they were getting called for holding down.

Add in a tackle called held if even 1 leg is lifted of the ball carrier by defenders, the speed is much, much faster.

One thing I'd love to see culled from SL games: the ref calling held then the defending team dropping the ball carrier to the floor - that should be a penalty every single time because they continued the tackle after the held call.

Part of the reason the defenders do that is that a held call is usually followed by a quick play the ball that often catches the markers not square. I think if we applied the held call in a similar manner to the surrender or dominant call and delay the play the ball, then we'd get fewer incidents like those and also fewer attempts at a 3rd man diving at the legs of a player already held upright by 2 other defenders.

or maybe use the held call sooner? so give more of an advantage to the ball carrier rather than the defenders?
i know ref's use the dominant/surrender call etc but if the defenders don't bring the attacker to the ground within a certain time, then the ref can call held as soon as he deems the ball carrier has done enough to warrant playing the ball stood up.

it's a mess at the moment, 2 men go high, to stop the initial momentum and to wrap the ball up, then usually a 3rd comes in to take his legs from underneath him, they then all pile on top of him and try to turn him on his back and away from his own posts, the referee has sometimes already called held by this point but then chooses not to penalise certain teams for it but are quick to penalise others for it.

back in the day, the first tackle was usually around the waist/hip with another trying to "wrap man and ball up".
for me, as soon as the ball carrier is stopped then the tackle should be called, if it means 30 penalties a game until it gets cleaned up then fine, just clean it up!

But with that approach you also lose some opportunity for offloads. Plus the problem is with defenders wanting to take an attacker to the ground whilst he's got defenders holding his upper body, he's often not entirely still, he's often moving in one direction or another. If we move the held call much earlier we deny the opportunity for attackers to move forward or offload and for defenders to legitimately push the attacker backward.

But if we allow the defence more time (only equivalent to what a surrender call would give the defence) then there's no incentive for them to put another defender in to the tackle to take the attacker down. That defender can be getting back onside instead.

if the ball carrier is "wrapped up" and not making any forward ground then the held call should be then, not 5 seconds later enabling the defenders to take him to ground.

I have no problem with held being called quickly as long as the ruck is well policed, if the attacker is allowed to play the ball quick then they should play it to the rules " rise to your feet place the ball on the ground & play it with the foot, also don't allow them to move forward of the mark to play it" at the moment it is all one sided the attacker is allowed to do as they wish. There is so little contest for the ball now & the way the game is reffed is driving me away from from a game I have loved for over 50 years. To predictable to one dimensional & spontanious plays driven out of the game.