i watched the game as a neutral in the pub with no sound, and would be interested in the reasons for allowing the Ratchford try under the posts.

I thought the camera angle from behind clearly showed that the trajectory of the ball had changed and therefore Ratchford had handled it, which then means he had to ground it at the first contact with the ground, yet it seemed quite clear that there was daylight when the ball hit the turf and the first grounding came with the torso.

What was the video ref looking at?

From the various angles the VR took I don't think we ever saw the ball being grounded by Ratchford. Then with the last view they showed it seemed to definitely show the ball changing flight after hitting Ratchford's arm and hitting the ground.

Then the decision came up and it said Try.

My guess is that he was going for No Try and he hit the wrong button.

well you 'dont really care what the rules say'... so

Bless.

Did I miss something or when a bomb was put up to Ratchford at 12-0 and the ball bounced forward off him into the arms of a Warrington player why was the decision 'backwards'?!

Think we're seeing the result of this referee's on-field decision coming back to bite the VR in the Harris.

Why? If the ref says try and video shows otherwise then it's no try and vice versa.

Bentham gave a try, and the VR gave a try.

Whether it was a try or not, it makes no difference, both officials said it was a try and so it stood.

Couldn't give a rat's @rse to be honest, about time we got some of the 50/50 calls for a change.

Not a bad performance from a team which has had a sheeeite kicking game this year against a team that was unbeaten.

In all honesty, I think we had the rub of the green with decisions. I think we deserved to win by the intensity/desire we played with but there were a couple of 50/50s which changed the game. Our second try by Ratchford, for me, wasn't a try cos at no point did I see him connect with the ball properly with his hand.
Other questionable desicion was the up and under For the Leeds try. Was given as knockon from Leeds player, but for me, I thought it should have gone through.
These would have put Leeds back in, but credit the Wire defending.
Wire played really well. Westwood was the best man on the park- every drive
Took on The Leeds forwards and made huge yards. Some key changing
Moments were on the back of big hits and drives by Westwood.

Just read (Wire fanatic ). The Leeds defence and Wires line was separated enough to un-qualify any Wire player to be used as a decoy. The nearest defender was Ablett, pushing to tackle, but there is still a good 3 metres between Him and Penny.

Come on Wire

I too watched it without sound, and thought the Ratchford try very dubious. Saw nothing wrong with Penny's, though. Defenders need to get out there and make tackles, instead of looking to the obstruction rule to get them out of a hole.

Leeds have trouble winning away from Headingly against top teams. What a shame that Todd Carney will not be available to play in Perpignan later this month. Catalans would have taught the Rhinos a lesson, just as they did recently with Warry Warry Warry Warry Warrington. Mind you, Catalans still may do so if Scott Dureau is on song.

"Whether it was a try or not it makes no difference"

The words of a moron

The Penny try, i would say 9 times out of 10 that try would be ruled out without a shadow of doubt. As for the Wires second try, stood right in front of it, never a try in a million years!

Also, why was Singleton penalised for passing the ball when his ball carrying arm was no where near the ground, has that rule changed?

Just another bad call on the night - watching it back on Sky, did anyone else pick up Phil Clarke saying 'thank you, thank you, thank you' when that decision was given? He was delighted, you could hear the relief in his tone - even if it had been a correct call, Clarke shouldn't be responding to happenings in the match like that

Havent seen any commentary from last nights game yet but in relation to the Penny try, on the night watching the screen in the ground, they only reason I can see that it was given is that "commonsense" took plcae. All last season we were saying how the obstruction rule was ridiculous and so many occasions when " yeah but the defender would never have got there". Last night I think that part of the reason the try was given was that the Leeds defenders appeared to be backing away when Penny when through the gap. How could they have been obstructed from tackling him if they were going in the other direction. Dont know if technically the new rules covered this, but the spirit of the rules certainly did.

Ratchfords try (again based on the video screen only)..... downward pressure on the ball...TRY !

If there was downward pressure on that try I am really a nun called Rita

HI Rita how is the nunnery, only kidding I agree no try

there were a few dubious calls last night against both teams, the penny try (could have been disallowed by another set of officials,although i personally thought it was fine)
the ratchford "try"
the knock on against goulding ( again some officials would have given it)
the penalty against singleton for passing off the ground

however despite these, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game,Warrington would still have won.

Spot on

Im not so sure, all those incidents go the other way than they did and you have a very different game.

Even just taking the Singleton no try, Leeds were picking up momentum and that would have made it 18-12 with a fair bit to go.

However, I'm not blaming the officials for Leeds losing, Wire were the better side.

What I will say is that I don't think the new VR rules are actually working, that ratchford 'try' was a clear no try and shouldn't have been given but I think the VRs seem hesitant to overturn any decision at the moment.

I think that relates to his piece on Sky Sports website about players being allowed to "go back and play it again" when passing after the "held" call or carrying on running when they think they haven't been tackled. He argued that if you play on after you've been tackled, you should be penalised as you would have been in previous years.

I got the feeling that he was praising the fact that instead of Bentham telling Singleton to play the ball again, he was actually giving (as it turned out, incorrectly) a penalty.

While I'd agree that Clarke's "anyone but Leeds" bias has been in full flow ever since the flak he got for his "rugby gods" column on Danny McGuire a few years ago, on this occasion I don't think that was the case. No doubt he'll be back in the full Cherry And White cheerleader costume for next week's game against Wigan though.

Ah fair enough, I've not seen Boots N All - he gets the benefit of the doubt this time then..... Just...