Looks like they have just lined Smiths feet up with Pryce's @rse. Perhaps you could enlighten us and show us where the ball actually is? Because from all the wide angles they aren't conclusive because Pryces's body obstructs the view.

When the view from the other side was shown on sky the ball was exactly where the invisible mans jacksy was hence both feet behind the ball!
Either way we won end of!!!!!!!!!

Exactly. And I think you'll find that's why Bentham cannot disallow the try.

One thing is pretty certain the ball had to be infront of McGuire's front foot (so Sky's talk about smiths position relative to McGuire's back foot is nonsence).

The BBC highlights yesterday were interesting - they drew a line from what appeared to be McGuire's front foot (not the ball, so in actual fact Smith had a couple more inches) and it was pretty much level with Smiths feet (i.e. ONSIDE!).

Smiths body is leaning way forward of the line but that doesn't matter.

Great call by the VR.

Ref Smith's try – there is inefficient evidence to conclusively say that Smith was in an on-side/off-side position when the ball left McGuire's boot thus shrouding the incident in doubt. The fact that we are STILL debating this obviously indicates that is the evidence is inconclusive.

If there is an element of doubt then the assumption falls with the attacking team – result = try.

Anyway, as Long said in his post match interview, chalk the Smith try off and they'd have still lost.

Please don't bring in a balanced argument into the OP's blatent attempt to have a dig at a saints player who has given a sound assessement of the game!!

Except it wasn't announced as benefit of doubt.

hats off to wilkin for such a measured response so soon after the defeat.

Probably learnt from last years little outburst.

I thought both Wilkin and Long (haven't heard anyone else form the Saints camp discuss it yet) were pretty close to the mark with their post-match comments. Long summed it up when he basically said there wasn't much between the sides other than Leeds took their chances and Saints didn't. I thought it was a really tight game. That said, I had a feeling that it turned when Burgess, Lauititi and Bailey came on around the alf hour point. Saints' pack was beginning to look leggy (and why not given the effort they'd put in) and we started to punch holes straight away.

Why do people get on Wilkin's case?

He is hardly moaning - just stating an opinion. FWIW, I tend to agree with him. I never thought we dominated, but certainly made the running early in the game.

The pack always made us the yards, but what was crucila was our lack of any incision with Pryce killing any moves in the backs and Leeds' kicking game.

Both teams defences were very good. Leeds have two wingers who do not come up with mistakes, and Hall backed up my predicition that he will be one of the starters for England this year.

It's more to do with his reaction in previous GF'S and having a whinge and coming across as very bitter and a sore loser.

Like Rhinoms has said its' his track record.

Moaning about the playoffs concept. moaning about cameras in the dressing room, moaning about "whooping". Heck, even the other week when Sky interviewed him on the pitch and gave him his MOM he reacted by moaning that James Graham wasn't in the dream team.

he's generally just a moaning git, though, surprisingly, not on this particular occasion.

Fine, but to be fair, I am glad there are people who actually voice where things should improve as opposed to the Martyn Sadler approach to life where all things that the RL do must be praised.

That said, does watering the pitch mean you get better value from your kicking game as the ball will tend to sit down rather than bounce and roll as it would on a hard surface?

If Saints had a kicking game of any note, they may have been able to better exploit these conditions.

I agree but think we need to be careful about high profile players saying the things they do.

For example, when the game is trying to sell the concept of Murrayfield magic it can hardly help when a player deriving his income from the game belittles it in advance. Same with the playoffs.

Maybe after the events or in the off season is the time for Mr Wilkin, who is clearly articulate and intelligent, if often a little off the mark, is the time for him to voice his opinions?

To a lesser extent Peacock was guilty of this with his negative comments abouth e clubcall event in the build up to it.

As I've already said I don't really agree with his assessment but also, to be honest, I think his comments are a fair opinion.

My main point (which I think has been lost, so maybe I wasn't clear) was the contrast between the headline "Leeds deserve win" and the article that never quite manages to say that.

(Admittedly, Wilkin probably had nothing to do with the choice of headline)

I think that although Saints were making more meters per set than Leeds probably did, most of the game was 20m either side of the half way line. I can only remember 1 drop out being forced by either team.

I think Leeds may have made many fewer meters ball in hand, but got to the danger zone on more occassions, and were able to forge more openings

Still picking a Saints win chug muffin?

Thirded. He's said nowt wrong here though.

Credit to Long to for his after match comments. Despite being clearly disappointed he was very gracious in defeat. Went up a lot in my estimations.

That echoes my thoughts on the match report thread ... The turning point came around the 25th minute with the forward rotation from the bench. Basically, what we brought on was better and more motivated than what they brought on ....

Hear, hear! He showed what a true sportsman he is and I hope that Rhinos fans get off his back now. Whinging Gilmour could learn a thing or two from Long about being a sportsman in defeat ('Smith was a foot offside!').

In today's RL Express he's blaming us winning on the fact that the field had been waterered