Personally I thought the game was a cracking game but for all the wrong the reasons. It was a proper traditional tough game of RL, which competently policed would've been a cracking game for all the right reasons.
Both teams were up for it, there could be no doubt about that. I did feel however that we were rushing things far too much, especially in the first half and trying to score from every set. We weren't playing with the composed approach and creative flair that we've seen builds pressure and provides us with dominant field position. Hull succeeded in pushing us down the middle and we seemed reluctant at times to spread the ball wide, despite more often than not doing serious damage when we did.
Defensively though, we were superb. Hull put us to the test throughout the game and in general we were solid, in particular near our own line. They've clearly improved in recent weeks and will continue to do so.
I'm not too fussed about the issues with our attack at this stage because we proved we can tough it out when we need to. With regards to the attack, there's plenty of improvement there - when moves aren't coming off it's more to do with timing and positioning than anything else and these things will come together with time.
I would describe the refereeing performance as unfathomable. Penalties were awarded with no obvious offence having been committed, whilst seemingly obvious offences were overlooked. The game felt frustratingly out of control from a very early stage and the players clearly became more and more frustrated as the game progressed. A number of points were scored by both teams as a result of mystifying calls; and Hull's first try was scored through field position gained from a refereeing mistake.
If Hull are entitled to complain, then we hold an equal right in that respect; however I believe it's harsh to say the referee cost them the game. I say that because Rugby League fans frequently scream out for consistency from the man in the middle and on Friday night we got exactly that.
