That would have been really good for him.



Maybe he's been listening to Sibbit

He needs a rest and a chat with Potter, but i'm confident he will continue to develop into a great player.

He's still a young lad with a hell of a lot to learn, probably still has a little bit of maturing to do but I believe he will turn out into a excellent player

Totally disagree, Bosc still had his hand on him whilst trying to get into position as Elliot was playing the ball, Ganson had given penalties for less in the game. The ball went backwards from his hand, the only reason he gave the penalty was because he didn't play the ball with his foot, which would obviously rule 99% of ball plays as illegal. Ganson clearly says 'that's not good enough, get your foot on the ball', as I say the decision was a joke, totally inconsistent.



Then there was the high shot that never was, Ganson was the only one who saw it.



My favourite was the lying on penalty against Elliot which I've just watched again. He is holding the player whilst looking at Ganson, Ganson shouts the tackle number and then shouts move, Elliot moves immediately and I do mean IMMEDIATELY, a split second later he blows his whistle.



Whitehead was unlucky last night, three rediculous decisions which all happened to go against him, without them he would never have got a mention.

I thought he looked for a pen and didn't get it. He didn't play ball correctly and it looked obvious he hadnt. He might have a hand on him, but a lot tackles have the defenders hand still on them when playing the ball. Lynch does it a lot in defence.



He's near the top of both errors and missed tackles this year. I thought he looked like he was gonna have a great year, but not to be. I wouldnt pressure him with claiming future international.

Why didn't he play the ball properly? Because he didn't put his foot on the ball?

he never regained his feet properly either, sort of fell over the ball... ganson was correct

Well if you think the decision was correct then that guarantees it was the wrong decision.

Please at least try and throw a positive comment in occasionally (even if you don't mean it!) - makes your persona more convincing

Funny that cos I was going to say the same about you





Out of the three situations I have to disagree with you on at least two...



The play the ball was incorrect, simple as that. you can't blame the referee if our man has failed to get up and playthe ball correctly. He was looking for a penalty and got caught bluffing.



The high tackle was borderline and I would say you have a point with querying that one.



However, the laying on was right. The tackle had been affected and the player failed to move off the man. I have to say that Ganson was right in saying that it wasn't him that determined the speed that a player rolls away from the tackle.



By the fact that he was looking at the referee rather than getting off him shows that he was deliberately slowing the play down.



The rules don't say tackle the player, hold the player down until the ref shouts held and only then get off him.



If you took your rose tinted glasses off you'd realise that EW is the one in the wrong (no matter how much I hate to admit Ganson had a fairly decent game for a change!!!!)

My reply to King Karl was in reference to him being a blatant troll.



The play of the ball was incorrect and the reason given by Ganson was because he didn't put his foot on the ball. Answer me this, why doesn't he give a penalty then every time a player doesn't touch the ball with his foot?



The high tackle was not borderline at all, he tackled the ball carrying arm as it was clear to see, the commentators reaction said it all.



The referee dictates the speed of the play of the play of the ball, the refereeing is so inconsistent in the super league that the players use the refs calls as to what's 'allowed'. For most of the game Ganson had been consistent but on this occasion he got it wrong, he shouted release and then blew his whistle immediately even though Elliot released the player.



I have already said that his penalties are a problem so there is no rose tinted glasses here, just think he was hard done by on a few decisions.

Eh? In this instance he/she was simply answering a question that had been asked. I fail to see why that warrants a rant????