Re: Hull FC.... : Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:23 pm  

I thought the Watts challenge was a sin bin myself Andy. And he had already let one similar go by one of the Leeds players(i forget who) earlier in the game so i can see why he didn't take action.

He wasn't perfect by any means, but he didn't spoil the game either like other more esteemed SL refs do on a regular basis.

Re: Hull FC.... : Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:27 pm  

Probably should've given Watts a card but maybe a tad reluctant to ruin a contest by taking a guy off/a bit of leeway given because the guy on the receiving end was Burrow and he'll always cop a few high ones. Overall I thought he did well, one or two decisions could've gone the other way but that'll always happen in games. Most importantly he didn't look like he wanted to be the centre of attention unlike some other certain referees.

As for Ash Golding, he did well. He obviously isn't going to give you the strong forward-esque carries that Briscoe and Hall can but he did a job including a key escape from in goal. His position now and in the future clearly isn't going to be as a winger, but in today's game with so many injuries about then if he can do a job there when needed like on Friday then it's very useful whilst waiting for games in a preferred position.

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:49 pm  

The Watts one should have been a yellow card as it was as much as a proffesional foul than anything else with the way it allowed his team mates to get back into the defensive line

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:00 pm  

Re-Ref He bottled the Watts one imo Yellow Card minimum as for our "high" shot the player is going to ground when contact is made & it wasn't as blatant a stiff swinging arm either.
The "ball steal" calls have been covered but imo the VR has plenty of time to intevene & correct those calls.

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:18 pm  

RHINO-MARK wrote:

Re-Ref He bottled the Watts one imo Yellow Card minimum as for our "high" shot the player is going to ground when contact is made & it wasn't as blatant a stiff swinging arm either.
The "ball steal" calls have been covered but imo the VR has plenty of time to intevene & correct those calls.

i wouldn't say you are wrong in what you say because he was falling and it wasn't intentional imo and always looks worse in slow mo, but don't forget moon saw red against Saints for similar last season.

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:11 pm  

Biff Tannen wrote:

i wouldn't say you are wrong in what you say because he was falling and it wasn't intentional imo and always looks worse in slow mo, but don't forget moon saw red against Saints for similar last season.

Moon got the Red because he was stood more sideways on & it was deemed leading with the shoulder mate.

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:26 pm  

RHINO-MARK wrote:

Moon got the Red because he was stood more sideways on & it was deemed leading with the shoulder mate.

Fair enough. I thought a Red was harsh for that at the time too as the player was again falling into the tackle.

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:32 pm  

Wouldn't rule out the end result too of the contact. Whilst the Hull player was down he wasn't flat out unlike the Saints player on the receiving end of Moon's (Percival was it?) and didn't he have to leave the field.

Not saying it's correct but refs do react to the injury suffered when making their decision. If Burrow had stayed down and needed treatment or had to go off I wouldn't be surprised to see a different action taken against Watts,

[Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino]

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:28 pm  

He did stay down and did have treatment.

Re: Hull FC.... : Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:52 pm  

Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino wrote:

He did stay down and did have treatment.

For about 15 secs and just a quick how are you check by the physio, he was up quickly enough to chat to the ref and take the tap. I mean in terms of the Percival one, he properly stayed down and needed lengthy treatment and wasn't he even stretchered or helped off too.