If he'd have been moving across to cover the kick there'd have been a very good chance that he could've smashed Smith and made him lose the ball. Smith had to catch the ball and evade Wellens, at that point if he'd have been hit by a committed Graham Smith could have easily lost the ball.

Even a last gasp challenge when he realised that Smith was going to catch the ball would've given him an outside chance of preventing the try.

Instead he just watched him go by.

Nearly as embarrassing as his dummy spit at Headingley IMO. A Leeds try pretty much ended the game, and he couldn't even be d to try and stop it.

I dont agree, I've just watched the slo-mo replay and...............hang on a minute, no sorry, it's not a replay just Wellens at full speed.

But not quite as embarrassing as his petulant charge out of the line to try and smash Ryan Bailey which led to the final penalty of the game on Saturday.

Or the fact that Bailey barely moved

Why all the bagging of Tanseys perfectly legal try at MM?
The RFL rulebook clearly states on page 42...

46.1.2 Onside/offside from a penalty.
An attacking player is offside during a penalty kick if he is in front of the kicker at the point the ball is struck. However, if the ball strikes one of the uprights and bounces back out to said "offside player" and he then goes on to score a match winning try the incident will be deemed as "funny" and the try will stand. (See rule amendment 49.2.4 - Funny)

funny... for you

Hope you didnt mind but I posted that on the Bulls version of this thread

That's alright, I was thinkng of doing the same myself.

Sorry Harry, it was poor English on my part. What I really should have been clearer on is that there seems to be two main schools of thought among Saints fans in relation to the decision. One, it was (or some even saying maybe, maybe not) off-side but it was a very close call and those are the breaks we have to live with. As such, I have sympathy with Saints fans and other people saying it was a harsh decision. However, for those calling it a shocking decision, 100% wrong, diabolical etc (like Havensaint below on the page from your quote above) are deluded are they not?

That looks to be the only honest original shot I have seen and the line looks to be in persepective and as I have said, it was a very close call and neither blatantly off-side or on-side.

I wonder if the idiots on Sky Sports will apologise for their histrionics during the game, and finally give us the credit we deserve?

You'll know if that is about to happen, the sound of a Pigs wings flapping is hard to miss.

TBH it's not us they should be apologising to, it's Bentham.

True, it would only be drowned out by the sound of St Helens freezing over

Some good work here by Inflatable armadillo, much better than the massive spinning rubber rings WTF! that sky came up with after the game.

Excellent work

and the ball was hidden behind Pryce`s right leg (nearest the try line) as was seen on the Sky camera from the reverse angle.

so it is a very fine call indeed and with benefit to the attacking side was the right decision. Some you win some you lose. Just ask Wigan in the Semi-Final

Has anyone got similar evidence to show if Tansey was or wasn't offside when he scored against the Bulls in Cardiff the other year?

I've only just stopped laughing and now want to actually consider if the try should have been awarded or not.

Not to hand...... but really, he wasn't even close to being onside

He actually wasn't that far off when you pause it. Far enough to be obvious but barely a metre in front.

Bentham would have given it if he'd been VR and it had been referred.

I was just getting a little fed up with the Numpty's on the entertainers and RedVee who clearly do not understand perspective and vanishing points!

The vertical line of course indicates the position of the rail camera in relation to the pitch at the point this shot is frozen (the one Bentham decided on). It is a good 5m+ in front of the play which make it bloody hard, even with the perspective lines, to be make a decision. However, it does look to me like Smith's foot is behind the ball and therefore on-side to me.

Now, now, Tansey was in front of the ball when it was kicked and the rules are very, very clear on penalty kicks, he must be BEHIND the ball. Tansey was not and was therefore well off-side... unlike the very tight call on Saturday.

Agreed, Tansey was definately offside unlike Smith. However Tansey wasnt the 50 odd metres offside that Eddie & Stevo would like everyone to think he was. Plus if some of the Bradford players had put a little bit of effort into getting near the ball instead of waving their arms around they may have stopped it.

It also should be added that when McGuire kicked the ball it wasn't on the ground, it was perhaps 12-18 inches from the ground. Drawing a line directly from the ball will be slightly inaccurate, and adding in the height of the ball would work even more in favour of Smith being onside.