I don't fancy trawling through all the posts on here after the Leeds match... so I just wanted to ask...

Did anyone else think that these two decisions were inconsistent?

Let me put it this way... the rules changed on try scoring... now, control isn't necessary, downward pressure, without knocking on, is all that matters. APPARENTLY.

As a result, since grounding the ball in your in-goal area is exactly the same process as scoring a try in your opponent's in-goal area, then Mathers did that? The ball is on the ground and there is contact with his fingers. JUST THE SAME as there is for McGuire's try.

To me, the decision should have been either discount both or allow both, as it was the decisions ended up being one of each, resulting in two scores for Leeds.

I mean, it was a thrilling match and everything, and Leeds didn't cheat as such, so take nothing away from them, it wasn't like the blatant offside at Millennium Magic against the Bulls, for instance... but in a game so close it has basically made a massive difference to the table for both teams.

I know we question the ability of officials at the best of times, but I thought this was a particularly bad example. Some tries that have been given via video referee have been awful, probably one of the worst examples was one of Gareth Raynor's, when he CLEARLY knocks on in diving for the ball. Yet the try was given!

So... debate open, chuck in your thoughts or not. It's up to you.

At normal speed, which by the way is how the game is played, neither Mathers nor McGuire had control, so the first try should have been given and the second try disallowed.

The 'slo-mo' stuff freezes the action to show contact with the fingers and ball and the ground, not control in my book.

No sour grapes as we should have dealt with both. It wasn't Leeds that awarded the TRYs they were awarded by the vieo ref.

Yes, that's what I say, no control as such in either case, but certainly downward pressure, albeit very light pressure.

If that is all that's needed, then the opposite decisions to yours should have stood? I.e. No try to Hall and Try to McGuire.

If you need to have control, then as you say, it should be Try to Hall, No Try to McGuire.



Again I agree, and I'm not at all saying that Leeds cheated, just that the decisions as they stood make no sense in the same match, almost as if two completely different policies applied.

I don't mean to confuse things, when I say "The decisions should have matched", I mean that the initial player to contact the ball with ground should have the same decisions applied in each case.

Whichever way you look at it, one try should be given and the other disallowed for the same reason.

I agree, if Mcguire didn't think he had control then it is safe to say it probably shouldn't be given. However they are given week in week out. In the same way it should have been judged Matters grounded the ball.

Or perhaps it has something to do with player intentions

So the VR's have mind reading skills?

Yes

Although i felt aggrieved at the decisions at the time - players intentions must be a factor. Mathers was clearly trying to pick up the ball and not ground it (why he didn't kick it dead only he will know!) whereas Mcguire was trying to put downward pressure on the ball albeit only with his fingertips!!!

Similar to when a player sticks a leg out to block a grubber kick if the attacking team picks the ball up tackle count back to zero but if ball hits leg accidently tackle count continues - its all about intent!!

Still miffed that the Hall try was given though!!!

Thats Past - Bring on saturday - cannot wait!!!!

Both were completely different, Mcguire had his fingers on the ball whilst the ball was on or over the try line. Mathers knocked-on it's that simple, Mathers got his fingertips to the ball then the ball touched the ground but by this time there was daylight between his fingers and the ball hence the reason for a knock-on/play-on and the try was rightly awarded.

A knock on in the in-goal is a straight drop out isn't it?

Oh sorry my mistake it wasn't a knock-on as Mathers was facing his own line and the ball went backwards, it was simply play-on.

It was one of those fifty-fifty decisions. We would have accepted both decisions in a reciprocal scenario.

But - I don't think players intentions have any course in the decision making process, just the outcome of their actions.

If it was a knock-on wouldn't they have played advantage anyway?