Re the "punch", the fact is that a crunch match like the CC Final can't be quite refereed as if it was just any old game, sending a player off is an infinitely more serious sanction than in a league game. Plus, these are supposed to be the two leanest, meanest sides having a go hell for leather at each other, winner-takes-all. It is for this reason that the refs tend to (rightly) use more discretion, you only have to watch any Origin game to see what I mean.



Secondly, in my experience the odd dust-up is appreciated by the fans - it generally sorts itself out, and shows that there is some passion about.



The "punch" wasn't much more than a push, it did no damage, and the player wasn't felled, shouldn't have done it but a penalty and a stern word were perfect in the circumstances in my book.



Sending him off for that would put us on a par with soccer, which started off down this "consistency" path years ago and has now degenerated to the farcical situation where a glancing brush to the face with a little finger can count as "violent conduct" and get a player sent off. While his opponent writhes on the floor as if his head had been boiled then steamrollered, and his mates surround the ref in a furious mob, all brandishing imaginary cards.

Again i think 1 biff incident should result in those involved getting a spell in the bin, even in a final.

There should be no fines afterwards, just sin bin sufficient.



If the same person kicks off again in the same game in which he's already been in the bin then he gets a red, it stops the game becoming silly and beyond a joke.



Forget Stevo and his "OH THIS IS JUST DISGRACEFUL" nonsense, FANS LOVE BIFF and these are very tough and rough human beings.



Don't sanitise the game, bring it into the 21st century, why do people think boxing is on the decline and MMA and UFC are increasing?

There have been 7 sendings off this season, 3 in one match. There have been more than 7 punches thrown all season.

For a supporter of a club that has supported Ryan Bailey, Ablett, and Brent Webb through thick and thin I find the attitude of some Leeds supporters amazing. Get over it.

Miss the bit about "binned" and "granted i’ve not seen every match played"? According to the super league site there have been 35 yellow cards this year. Obviously not all of them will be for fighting, but nice of you to focus on just the sending off bit.

Also did you miss the bit where i said Warrington played better and would of won even if we got the calls?

And to clarify once again.......at the time of the ORIGINAL knock-on, deemed to have been by Brett Hodgson, Warrington had the ball and therefore, as for as the video screen is concerned, Leeds were the defense.



Again, confusion would have been averted with "Scrum Leeds". The issue many fans had AT THE TIME was that the Leeds player was seen to knock it on, the Leeds player collecting it was offside so why did Leeds get the feed? I dont think anybody in the ground at the time thought that Brett "knocked on". Further review of the evidence....(ie, I watched the game again, will never get tired of that) you have to view it that Brett released the ball and it hit a player coming from in front of him (albeit that player was actually on top of him). In those circumstances, the ball hitting the Leeds player and then going forwards (from a Leeds POV) would NOT have been called intentional knock-on. It was the clear swing of his hand for the ball to knock it away when they all ended up on the floor.



My reaction on the day......"HTF has he given it that way?". Now....."good call Mr VideoRef/Silverwood"

And to clarify to you once again, the term attack and defence is NOT determined by possession of the ball but territorial advantage.



Warrington were in possession but ten yards from their line and were therefore defending.



HTH

ER was this game played last saturday or what the game is now history get on with your life Leeds lost shame warrie won shame lets not have any more rubbish about it please

Same here, and I am one. It's no good moaning about a lack of intensity within the game whilst at the same time fussing over every minor indiscretion. It was about as serious as Bailey's flop on the grounded player - worthy of a penalty and nothing more.

And like I said, what appears on the screen "xxxxx- Attack" or "xxxxx - defense" is decided by the TV company and has got sod all to do with the glossary of terms within the supporting sections to the rules of the game. They decide what goes on screen for the purpose of the viewers/spectators not based the technicalities of the rules. The term on the glossary is "attacking team" and "defending team" NOT "attack"/"defense" would be the only argument the TV company would have for the error......................we dont care what the definitions say will be the fact.

Actually to put the matter to bed.... On BBC Manchester RL phone in, on the refs call section it was admitted that it was a mistake in the video booth...... Simples.... Different system to what they are used to on the sky games and it should have said scrum attack...

Is this still going?!



If they change it "Scrum [insert team" then there won't ever be this confusion again. Agreed?



Let's move on. The OP was wrong, and has lost credibility, not rugby league.

To lose something, you have to be in possession of it, initially.