This could be an interesting one for debate, especially as its now irrelevant to the result.

Having looked at the replays, I reckon they did find a frame where he touched it down before the dead ball line.

However, didn't he knock it on prior to that by flicking the forward moving ball with his fingers?

And, wasn't the ball in contact with Webb when he was over the dead ball line, making the ball dead? Not sure Thaler even considered this one?

After Lee Smith was judged onside by the bit of leather on the back of one of his boots in 2009, I was happy that benefit of the doubt should award that try.

Would have been harsh not to give it.

Regarding Webb making it dead, in those circumstances does Webb have to have an hand on the ball to make it dead?

I thought it was a marginal knock-on (as much as Burrow's vs Wire for Hall's disallowed try was) before Makenson touched it down but can see why it was given and, given the result, can just shrug my shoulders.

He knocked it backwards into Webb who was sliding along the grass and then it went forward so it wasnt a knock on,he grounded it just before the dead ball line.

But another twist to that, is that the ball was touching Webb when Webbs feet were out of play and before Makinson touched down, so as earlier mentioned, is the ball dead?

It was a knock on by Makinson. He couldn't propel it backwards with anything like sufficient force to prevent it traveling forwards in relation to the ground. In addition Webb was in contact with the ball while he was out of play which should have made the ball dead in any case. Bentham's gut ruling was correct in this case (it appears the 'captain's challenge' is creeping in by the back door) and it would have been interesting to hear Ian Smith's commentary on the red button option on SKY.

Where would the GF be though without officials making controversial calls to keep it interesting. The earlier Dixon 'no try' should have been ruled offside against Moore resulting in a penalty to Leeds.

Correctamundo!

But it didn't matter really!

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/9_touch_and_touch_ingoal[/url

The rules state 'The ball is in touch in-goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch in-goal line, or any object on or outside the touch in-goal line.'

No try

As for saying it was a knock on, i think that would have been a tough call.

Oh and congratulations

Thought it was a knock on, also thought it was in touch but wouldnt have complained if we had lost because of it. Its Webbs mistake to leave it to the officials.

According the Charnley/Wigan logic, had Makinson not touched it, it would have been a tap twenty restart as Webb made no attempt to play the ball and the fact he did was an accident. Which would clearly have been a ludicrous situation and simply highlights how poor a call the Charnley one was.

I thought it looked a try on the big screen. Why was the Dixon try not give?

Dixon try was a knock-on. He dragged the ball forwards along the ground as he gathered it in. By the way, Saints other try should not have stood either as Wheeler was clearly offside from the kick and was within 10 metres of Jones-Bishop so play should have restarted with a Leeds penalty rather than a Saints scrum. All academic now, of course, as the result was not affected in the end. Great game between the best two clubs of the SL era!

what if leeds had taken a quick drop out

Fully agree.

Firstly Makinson made contact with the ball (but with no downward pressure) as the ball was being propelled forward towards the goal line. This means it was a knock on.

Secondly when he did eventually apply downard pressure Webb's feet were over the goal line so out of play.

And thirdly, when Makinson applied downward pressure it appeared that the tip of the ball was touching the goalline, although the view was not decisive, there was enough doubt raised for a No Try decision to be awarded.

E=MC2

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that its now irrelevant whether it was a try or not I dont think thats the point, at least it shouldn't be.

Clearly there were a number of issues, at a pinch he got downward pressure before the whitewash, and that is giving Makinson the benefit of the doubt. However, Webb had it dead and there was a knock on. However you cut it it should have been no try.

Now suppose Saints had won by 4 points. Is itnot an issue anymore? Would we be happy?

The fact is that this was the wrong decision and just because it didnt affect the overall outcome of the game shouldn't matter. Thaler should be hauled over the coals for not been able to make a competant decision even with technology at his finger tips. Why does it only become an issue if it affects the outocme of the game. These errors should be stamped out reagardless.

Completely agree



It didn't matter in this case but what if it had. If the rule states that Brent Webb being in contact with the ball makes the ball dead then that is the rule. No ifs. No buts. No 'it doesn't matters'.

Also, I really don't like the way Phil Bentham changed his mind because James Roby told him to. James Roby is not the captain.

as my grandmother used to say

if "Ifs and ands were pots and pans there would no need for dishes"

you would argue if you did not get it and you would if you had it awarded against you. my gut reaction was how the REF called it

forgive my lack of knowledge

But Is Roby the captain at the time when Jammer was on the Pitch and ask the Ref to look at it?

I have no problem with Bentham. As i said after Wembley I'd rather they got these big decisions right even if it's against protocol. I still think he should have gone to the video ref for the scrum with 3 mins left in the Cup FInal though.

On the try it was prob a knock on for me. He seemed to flick it forwards with his hand under it at one point. I don't mind itg being given. I think the Dixon one could have been given and one each way seemed to even itself out to me

I would agree with that. I've no problem with a referee going back on a decision provided it's the correct one. I thought the Dixon one was a try. He drags the ball towards himself, but has control over it and downward pressure. Makinson didn't knock on but as mentioned I did wonder why it wasn't ruled dead because of Webb's foot and the ball touching his body. Daft decision from him to not ground it though, could have been a Meli-esque feck up were it not for Shenton's injury giving Leeds the scent of blood.

I've just posted about Shenton's injury on another thread. Changed the game and looked nasty. I like to think we had gained a little bit of momemtum prior to that but it certainly helped.

Agree with Dixon - BOD for me as there is a moment where it's under his body and you can't see if it touches the ground. Not enough to disallow it though.

I think Makinson had his hand under the ball and flicks it forwards at one point. At the moment he is sliding in that direction so to stop it travelling forwards would be very difficult. He was helped by Webb being there providing the argument that it went backwards. Had Webb not been there I think it still goes forwards!

The Dixon 'no try' call was right for me but for the wrong reason. Moore was in front of the kicker and remained inside the 10 metres throughout. Leeds have had these type of calls go against them this season and I'm not sure why this was any different to those.

It never even appeared to cross the mind of the video referee from his deliberations and the eventual ruling denied Leeds a relieving penalty. Why Smith (the games best video referee by far IMO) was sat doing commentary on the calls for SKY was a strange one. Like the idea but would have preferred the roles reversed personel wise for the biggest game of the season.

if webb had done his job this thread wouldn't be here. he goes from the sublime to the awful in minutes

I said that at the time. Even the saints players didn't seem to appeal until the fans behind the goal saw the replay on the big screen and went mental - makes the ref look a joke to me.

As for the decision - at the game I couldn't tell owt from the big screen but having seen the replay I think Tvoc is spot on in his summary on Pg1