Agreed - there are those who will never take the blinkers off - thought Bentham had no choice to give it after watching it over and over again. The thing that annoys most people about such decisions is that in another game, a different VR or even Bentham himself may give a no try it was that close.

As for Sky i'm pretty sure it's in the sky mandate to hype up and create some hysteria about something. It's the same with their football coverage were a lot of nothing events are hyped up by their commentry and studio team in an attempt to whip up some hysteria.

I agree! I did not say whether I thought he was right or wrong, but to ever describe the decision as shocking is wrong. It was tough, not shocking. It would have been the same had he given it either way, because it was such a close call.

That's because none of those employed by Sky are actually "experts" - they're personalities.

Stevo is unable to grasp the most basic concepts of the game such as how wingers adjust their defensive positioning to respond to the movement of their centre - asking him to grasp the laws of the game is like expecting a penguin to peel an orange.

Clarke is a walking stats machine, but again lacks understanding of the finer points of the game. He can tell you how often a team do something but he's stuck if you ask him why it happens, unless it fits one of his preconceived theories.

McDermott & O'Connor? Funny lads, great craic but display the sort of tactical insight you would expect from front rowers.

It's only when Sky get coaches involved - which I thought the BBC did brilliantly with Noble and Morgan for its highlights show, and that Sky used to get with Tony Rae, that you get any sort of worthwhile insight into a game.

Had the try been disallowed, do we honestly think that Saints were going to go down the other end and score?

They didn't look like it all night.

I'd have taken 11-10 just as much as 18-10

I agree. It is also the hypocrisy of it all with the Eastmond try. Looking at it again the ball changes direction/trajectory prior to it reaching Scott Donald. There was no hysteria after this contentious try was given just an acceptance of the VR's decision. I am sick fed up with Clarke, Stephenson & Hemmings and it took Brian Carney to bring some perspective into the analysis.
Note Clarke kept his mouth shut about cheating after St Helens interference at the play the ball and Cunningham's antics on Saturday.

His reasoning that the Eastmond no-try should be given as you shouldnt penalise good play was laughable at best.

Who knows ? Leeds may have scored again, Saints may have piled on more pressure. At 11-10 the game was still up for grabs. As it was Leeds try was correctly given so we'll never find out.

We'd have been 1 point ahead and they'd have been starting their set around our half way line.

A penalty would've been enough for them to take the lead. A drop goal would've levelled the scores.

Saints went as close as you can get on two occasions at both corners.

It would have been a completely different end to the game had the try not been given.

Its not like Saints have ever got the benefit of a big call in a GF is it? cough Voluntary Tackle Cough

Well yes, that's kind of how cause and effect works...

Read the ****ing post I was responding to, ****.

When you have to resort to stating the bleedin obvious mate its time to stop digging the huge hole your fast disappearing into

Mick Withers "knock on".

Indeed.

Feck the offside, which it was IMO. I was more peeved with Meli once again making the mistake that led to the opportunity.

FACT: If you make mistakes, then you put yourself in the position to suffer these calls.

Leeds made the most of the Saints errors. Meli's howlers and Fas' ill advised pass before half time.

Spot on. You can add to this the fact that both of the Saints penalties were from decisions that were at best harsh (Senior's obstruction and Burrow's high tackle). So they arguably 'cheated' all 10 points. Should have been 18-0 !

Clarke (acting as a front for a dispasionate stat man) allows himself to get too emotuionally involved. I referenced the Eastmond try myself and Clarke's bizarre utterance that it should be awarded just on the basis that Eastmond is the most exciting young prospect on the field.

Where does that enter the legallity of the score.

Both were close calls, both were correctly awarded as tries.

All the Saints fans? Have you spoken to them all?

24-0, since Webb was just going for the ball and shouldn't have been penalised when Bailey 'scored'.

Saints should have had a penalty when Webb failed to play the ball correctly and Ganson gave a knock on. 24-2

Of course Leon knows there was a game. He got a much better view than all the other spectators at Old Trafford.

With the Saints player all over his back has he tried to play the ball it should have been a penalty to Leeds and we would have gone the length of the field to score..... 30-0

Saints player was stood up Webb played the ball before regaining his feet.

Even Phil Bentham would've spotted it.

linkage?

And MR Cumming's and the R.F.L. have alway's been correct in what they say and do.........Give me strength I can live with leeds winning the game but let's get off this "OFFICIAL" clarification confirmation of the try sorted.
It was a wrong decision that went against the saint's. It wasnt 50/50 60/40 or 70/30 decision.They got it 100% wrong end of.


Shall we go back to the start of the build up to the try were the leeds player kicked the ball forward at the play the ball and the touch judge was looking at it. NAH a bit like union, if it looks like a nice try ..........leave it alone.


Look forward to headingley next year