: Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:30 pm  

Matt23 wrote:

We got the rub of the green yesterday to be fair. If we'd have been pulled up for that 'obstuction' I'd have been fuming.

A try for mine.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:10 am  

Matt23 wrote:

If you looked at the decisions and how many points they cost Hull etc, you could probably make a decent case that they should have won the game. However I think we just about deserved it, and could have probably gone up a level when needed. If they can keep everyone fit next season they'll be a far bigger threat.

Ifs, buts & maybes Matt. Had the Leeds lead and performance not seemed so far ahead after half time would the team have taken the foot off the gas and allowed Hull back into it?

The disallowed try for Hull was a shocker, but the Burrow forward pass is the sort you'll see in the build up to a try in every game and I don't think Hall's foot touched the line.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:17 am  

It's funny but Hull had several "forward passes" that were not spotted also. Maybe if everyone with a big fish gob didn't shout "foorraarrd", or boo constantly a more even handed view of the game might be seen.
I think we had some luck, but as for the obstruction, it was a simple decision (wether you agree with it or not). A Hull player went through into the Leeds defensive line and crashed into a defender who was trying to get to someone else. That's obstruction and a penalty with the interpretation the refs have used for quite a while now (and we have had plenty go against us - none more controversial than Ali last year on the very same ground - but nobody compalins about that because in the end we thrashed them anyway).
I do wish coaches would stop acting like Eddie and Stevo. Funny how we are the most penalised team in the league and that's still not good enough for coaches of cr@p teams we beat.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:51 am  

odd that Hull fans missed the two attempted stamps on Peacock and Buderus by Moa at the ptb in the first half. Also When yeaman slipped the ball for broughton before he fell over was either forward or very flat

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:19 am  

Puig-Aubert wrote:

Ifs, buts & maybes Matt. Had the Leeds lead and performance not seemed so far ahead after half time would the team have taken the foot off the gas and allowed Hull back into it?

The disallowed try for Hull was a shocker, but the Burrow forward pass is the sort you'll see in the build up to a try in every game and I don't think Hall's foot touched the line.

I agree PA. We did get the rub of the green but had one of those tries been allowed/disallowed I'm sure we would have been able to kick on. Or we wouldn't have taken Buderus off at the stage we did.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:26 am  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

It's funny but Hull had several "forward passes" that were not spotted also. Maybe if everyone with a big fish gob didn't shout "foorraarrd", or boo constantly a more even handed view of the game might be seen.
I think we had some luck, but as for the obstruction, it was a simple decision (wether you agree with it or not). A Hull player went through into the Leeds defensive line and crashed into a defender who was trying to get to someone else. That's obstruction and a penalty with the interpretation the refs have used for quite a while now (and we have had plenty go against us - none more controversial than Ali last year on the very same ground - but nobody compalins about that because in the end we thrashed them anyway).
I do wish coaches would stop acting like Eddie and Stevo. Funny how we are the most penalised team in the league and that's still not good enough for coaches of cr@p teams we beat.

IMO it wasn't obstruction. But to be fair having watched a lot of sky games, whenever Thaler has been video ref over the last couple of seasons he has always pulled the similar incidents as obstruction, so he cant be moaned at about consistency there.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:36 am  

Gotcha wrote:

IMO it wasn't obstruction. But to be fair having watched a lot of sky games, whenever Thaler has been video ref over the last couple of seasons he has always pulled the similar incidents as obstruction, so he cant be moaned at about consistency there.

Not even though it was close to the location of the ball?

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:48 am  

On the obstruction - King ran through and initiated contact with a defender. If you're a dummy runner, you have to run at spaces not faces otherwise you run the risk of being penalised.

On the Burrow forward pass - you cannot possibly expect the referee to be able to call that, from front on and ten yards away from the play. The only person with the perfect viewpoint to spot that is the touch judge, and at the moment the overwhelming majority of them are offering referees to help whatsoever.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:50 am  

Gotcha wrote:

IMO it wasn't obstruction. But to be fair having watched a lot of sky games, whenever Thaler has been video ref over the last couple of seasons he has always pulled the similar incidents as obstruction, so he cant be moaned at about consistency there.

That's pretty much the way I saw it, the dummy runner just went a yard too far into the leeds line and collided with Sinny, rather than Sinny picking him out. Would Leeds have stopped the try? Probably not, but I was not surprised it was a penalty to Leeds.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:57 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

On the obstruction - King ran through and initiated contact with a defender. If you're a dummy runner, you have to run at spaces not faces otherwise you run the risk of being penalised.

another way of looking at it is, if that play had happened say on the halfway line would the ref have called it?