Thinking about this again last night and the interpretation of the word 'regain'. The most logical assumption one could make to clarify this grey area is that it means 'regain possession'. Then refer to my previous post for a clear meaning of the term 'in possession'...

Easy you lose the ball FORWARD and you dont catch it again BEFORE it hits the foor, its KNOCK ON!! RFL turning game in to a laughing stock cummings should stand down full time refs what a joke!!!

I got bored after reading the first three pages .



~hands over the Whinos title~



Win some . Lose some . Who cares ?

Life goes on . There's always next week .





BTW . We was robbed when you beat us ... NOT

We had a bad night , you had a good night .

FFS .. get over it .

You were definately robbed. It's all down to Red Hall wanting to merge Cas, Wakefield and Featherstone to form one club.



Just watch. The next move will be for you to be offered a move to the new Wakefield ground. I think it's disgusting the whole thing and won't rest until this evil is vanquished.

Your right mate .Its' political corectness gone mad .All they are interessted in at Rod Hall is making sure Wh*no's win n getting more Froggy n Taffy clubs in. Its' a disgrace!

I can't read through all 14 pages of this thread, but I just watched boots n' all and I thought Cull got it bang on.... When we were in the ascendancy we made four mistakes in good ball positions and twice kicked out on the full and one kick was charged down IN THE FIRST HALF. If we had scored a converted try on any of those red-zone positions we would not have lost.



There is no conspiracy, ask yourself if that last try had been scored by one of our own players striving to get a win at the death, would you see it differently, I know I would. We lost that game, blew it, bombed it. Hull KR played average and we were worse on the day.

As a Wakey fan it makes no difference to us who won as both clubs are seen as top 8 rivals. But in all fairness Cas have been badly done to on 2 occasions.

Smart mouth Cullen has had all weekend to study the game yet missed Benthams 1st double error, Yes that big prop played the ball illegally but prior to that he was held up over the line and was pushed back after the ref had called it, and therefore the ball should have been played on the 10yd mark. And secondly it should not matter who dropped the ball over the line a knock on is a knock on. But not being a hypocrite I do take your point, imo we are only still in SL because the only person in the ground who thought Richards dropped the ball over the line for Wigin was the VR

Thatwas a bit of an escape that night wasn't it ? That's life though is it not ?

He's right, it wasn't Steve Ganson who made those mistakes. It was Cas.



It also wasn't Steve Ganson who got Cullen sacked from Warrington. It was Cas

I forgot that bit! maybe everyone is right it is a conspiracy and he is a hater as well! I was wrong.

Attacking side gets the benefit of the doubt at the end of the day and it cant be classed as a knock on because while the ball was in the air Watts touched and carried on touching the ball until it was grounded. Yes it was minimal, I am pretty sure Watts knew very little about it and like most people the rule needs solidifying so that it is never to create this debate again.



I've watched the game twice since last week and on countless times both sides play of the ball was the same as how Watts did for the Murrell try. However if this had been picked up the penalty would still surely have gone to Rovers for not more than one Cas player being onside to the laws of the game. The first offence was the offside then the incorrect play the ball.



Personally I wouldnt have given one Ainscough try due to a forward pass but the one just before half time I think too should have been benefit of the doubt due to not being able to see the line and the ruling states anywhere above the waiste and below the neck is classed as a try if connected with the ball on or over the line.



The game now is about milimeters not inches and with deeper annalysis of the game due to the video ref and more officials we are possibly becomming too critical. If the game was not on TV I doubt the Watts try would have been given, I do think Ainscough would have been given 4 tries. However it was on TV, Ganson went by the laws of the game and it turned out to be the winner that caused major debate.



Cas in some ways just need to settle themselves down and do what they do well more often like taking the ball accross pitch and score out wide. It works regularly so why try and muscle it down the middle?

Possibly due to the fact that our conversion rate from out wide isn't that great and arguably was an additional factor in our defeat last Saturday.