:29co7b5g



It could have been a fumble though?









I do agree that the video ref did get it wrong though, either way.

No like you I don't know what was said. On that basis I'm not going to question the decision that was made when I have no proof to the contrary. Can't think of any incidents where Ganson has made up things, maybe you'd care to enlighten me.

It was a fumble but one that was recovered before becoming a knock on so play on was the correct call for me.







As long as it's the match official that instigates the conversation I believe he can ask for advice from the video ref at any point in the game in any circumstance. There was the instance of which Ryan (Atkins or Hall) knocked the ball dead in the second half (where Webb was also obstructed by Peterson.) Leeds got the drop out in accordance with Silverwood's brief from Ganson.



I wonder if he was in any way tempted to rule on the obstruction? He'd have been wrong to do so if Ganson had not requested an opinion on the collision.

TP got marched 10 for dissent. There was plenty of dissent that wasn't penalised in the Leeds game too.



It needs stomping out though, I was very disappointed with Eastmond but not at all surprised. He's a very, errr, "confident" lad.

That's the kind of thing that officials alwauys trot out (in any sport) when talk of clamping down on things emerges. The thing is, you would see 4 or 5 players in the bin every match for a few weeks, then players would either learn or become too much of a liability to continue to be selected. I would sacrifice some of the quality in those first few weeks to stamp out petulant backchat in the longer term.

I think I missed the Puletua one in that case but the Eastmond incident appeared worse than those penalised at Belle Vue although I agree Ganson let Jones-Buchanan escape likewise late on.

I don't believe this is a major issue just yet but it's important it isn't allowed to become one. The referees authority should be protected at all costs and that extends to the SL where the example should be set for the rest of the game to follow.



I would like to see the RFL deal with dissent towards officials via the weekly disciplinary committee. Each and every case should be referred to the panel with a warning, then a mandatory fine of say £500, then a suspension for each subsequent proven case.



Clubs should also be in the RFL dock where their players can't refrain from challenging referee's calls.



It was never a problem in the past and I don't see any reason why it is inevitable that it should become one in the future.

I remember him getting pinged for carrying on running and not playing the ball where he then threw the ball away in disgust. Was that the incident? I didn't realise he got marched another ten for it as well.

Does anyone remember the short lived RFL experiment in zero tolerance in a lower league game a few years ago (Barrow sticks in my head for some reason).



They gave the ref (Kirkpatrick?) licence to basically penalise every infringement no matter how minor, resulting in 20-odd penalties in the first half. Second half there were around half a dozen.



Players and coaches are quick learners. If they know exactly what to expect and it is consistent from week to week, official to official then they will adapt their games as required.



The problem comes when that consistency isn't there, and what was being let go last week suddenly becomes "penalty du jour" the next.

For some reason, I thought it was Huddersfield when they were down in the National Leagues. Maybe even under TS.



Whatever, I remember the results being pretty much as you described.

I think you're right on that. Certainly on the result of the experiment

Spot on AG the consistency isn't there which leads to the confusion and out cry every other week.