the game should have stopped, it's as simple as that.

We lost, we had it in our power to win and we didn't, nut muddynuts saying in the press that it's bigger than a Grand Final win is just hilarious, it wont keep KR afloat next season, it was two points which Ganson gifted a terrible KR side.

I do wish people would stop being so overdramatic.

Referees are encouraged to stop the game immediately if they consider that:

a) the player and/or those attending to him are potentially interfering with play - He/they were not

b) a serious injury has occurred - this usually means a head/neck/back injury and an immobile player - He may not have been immediately ambulant but he was sitting rather than laying prone and unconscious.

The correct decision was to play on

Having been on the end of 'his bent manipulations' I'm 100% certain that your views perhaps could have a conflict of interests on your certainty Ganson deliberately attempts to manipulate games through the decisions that he makes. Mind you, by the same concept, my views on Ganson's decisions can be construed in the same (opposite) way.

By your post, am I right assuming that you genuinely believe that Ganson deliberately went on the Hull vendetta in the last 10 mins or so, just to make the game interesting?
Well if that’s the case, you can have Ganson and we’ll keep Thaler.

I'd like to add to all of this that having been an ex referee from the 1980's allbeit for only a couple of seasons.....when I was requested to act as a 'touch judge' for an important amateur game at the Circle (now The KC) the top "Hull referee" instructed me and the other touchy to 'let things go, because if we kept waving our flags.....it LOOKS POOR and makes me look incompetent'.

Needless to say, over the years and to this day, that SAME DIRECTIVE MUST be still being enforced for TV coverage.

However, as a referee your 'credability and impartialness' CANNOT be brought into question....With Steve Ganson this IS nearly every game.

The GUY is not a cheat.....JUST TOTALLY UP HIS OWN AR2E. He needs SUSPENDING.

That was the very point I thought I'd stated. The receiver of the ball being in front of the passer at the point of taking the ball.

As there so many "what ifs" in your post, how about this one.

What if in that set of six, rovers scored on the opposite wing, would have have been ok to carry on!

Of course Hull were disadvantaged, but players being treated whilst play continues is a part of our game. The only reason for stopping if it directly interferes with play or it's a head injury.

Too much being made of this, it's a non issue.

Wonder if Ganson has got the guts to tell PG he was wrong?

What do you think?

Hes not putting in a complaint hes just asking a simple question and I am sure thats not hard for him to do is it?

He obviously gave that pass the benefit of the doubt, you know like when Jordan Turner was nowhere near grounding the ball at the KC


1-1 I guess that makes it

No Philb, thats 2-1 to you lot based on the fact the Fred Lindop robbed us in 1980.

Even by your usual low standards of intelligence, that comment is dredging the pits of fookwittery

You're forgetting Silverwoods' Non forward, forward pass down in the Hollow.

Sorry guys but surely the game was lost with the lack of completed sets, Rovers completed twice as much and as such had twice as much possession !!!
They scored twice as much in the last 40 with said possession!!
It's a bitter pill to swallow but in this game there were many bad calls, dobbos sin bin, knock on under FCs posts given back to FC but it's now done!!
Seem to remember FC scoring from a blatent forward pass against Leeds only a few weeks ago!!
But guess that was ok, FC ballsed it up and Rovers played to the hooter

Which try was that?

Leeds first try was forward and the pass to Webb wasn't, but I don't remember a forward pass in Hulls tries

no point discussing with a moron, Dobson walked and quite rightly, professional fouls aplenty.

More or less, yes. Other possibilities exist but with much lower statistical probabilities.

i thought it was slightly harsh tbh. but understand why he was sent off

Moron??
Ok If my opinion is not the same as yours then I'm a Moron, seen players laying on far more ( even 3rd players in the tackle ) all weekend and every week, by the book he should have walked but I feel he was hard done to, as a moron I also retract my twice the sets and possession statement

You sure thats in the rules??

No doubt it was forward and a poor decision,but I keep asking the same question,what is the purpose of touch judges,match after match they run up and down the touchline and do nothing.It wasn't gansons call,he may have suspected it was forward and he looked at the touch judge for help and got nothing.Everybody is having a go at ganson,but the real culprit was the touch judge,he simply has not done his job.!

the thing that gets me is how unfit all of the officials are, they seem like they'd struggle to play bowls twice a week, let alone officiate a multi million pound sport. Russ Abbot had slimmer and fitter dancers than Ganson.

[jacko1 wrote

I'm notan expert on the rules by any means but in a pre-season summary/intro to rugby league (I think it was sky not BBC) it was definately stated that the Doctor can be identified by his red shirt (rather than the physio's orange ones) and as soon as he enters the field of play the game must be stopped. It stuck in my memory as I thought it was a ready made recipe for abuse.

Now you are talking like a complete 2@.

Ganson was closer to Hodgson, when he went over, than any of our players

Ganaon may be public enemy no. 1 in Hull but for me the above is the true position.

On Field policy guidelines allow the doctor on the field when the game is in progress. If the doctor goes on when the game is in progress because of a situation, the game should be stopped, but the medics must try to attract the attention of the officials to stop the game. Bear in mind in this case that the stretcher and the full medical pack was also taken out onto the field; that should have been just cause to stop the game.

So would I, we would have won the game then.