The game wasnt even in play! No matter how Useless/French the ref is there is no place for such verbal abuse. Maybe without your Saints specs on you'd see that

In spite of what that Saints fan says, if you look on our board you'll find there are a lot of Saints fans who agree with you. He should have been binned for it and he was very lucky that he wasn't.

Correct, but rules are rules and they should be respected, so when he does go 'over the top' he should be punished. The biggest discipline of all in RL is to stay within the rules, given the ferocious nature of the game. It is a massive flaw in Grahams game that he cannot contain his emotions in big games

But he speaks well of you!

Can anyone explain why they have made these restrictions on what the video ref can judge on?

By limiting what can or cannot be judged on seems to go against justice. It does make it rather make a farce when the replay often shows blatant forward passes which cannot be taken into consideration and last night a Saints player 3 metres offside and who should have been penalised as the player played the ball. Come on Cummings get it changed!

They limit it so that the VR can't go back further back than the last ptb, otherwise we'd end up with VR's checking an entire set of 6. The forward pass thing is a bit weird, but since the wind can influence the flight of the ball it can't be checked 100% by the VR.

As for the Wilkin offside incident, as has been said the VR can't look at things until after the ball is played but isnt he still offside for that entire play, not just at the PTB? (assuming we said he is offside, which if he was it was by inches)

Yes I understand you cannot go back to too far otherwise the stop in play would be too long, but the example last night was there was an offence at the last PTB ie blatant offside by the man that later gained the ball. So IMO that offence was within the timescale. ie at the last PTB. I think thats why the video ref was going to disallow the try. His mind was changed perhaps by listening to the Sky comments (despite their claims not to listen) Needs cleariing up as it could have cost Warrington 2nd place.

Again in most cases the VR highlights forward passes better than the officials IMO. The could add a line as in football offside. At the very least if the VR is inconclusive it can be handed back to the ref.

I agree it really does need clearing up and I'd also agree that the VR should be able to take a look at forward passes and, as you say, if its inconclusive pass it back to the ref. Though fans would have to take into account that just because a pass goes further downfield than from where it was passed it doesnt mean its automatically a forward pass. Issues like momentum and wind do affect passes.

If I remember right, Eddie et al said that because Halibut hadn't called offside the video ref couldn't go back and disallow the try for offside at the PTB. He simply was not allowed to look at it at all. The Sky guys said that Cummings had issued an edict about this following on from a disallowed try at Hull under the same circumstances. It might have been that Ganson misunderstood Halibut's request. Halibut might have been asking for Ganson to look at offside when Foster picked up the ball to score because it was chaotic, so the chances were that Halibut had not seen everything and simply wanted to check.

Don't let the facts get in the way though re the alleged offside by Wilkin. That joke of a ref was playing a big 10 metres. He may have been an inch or two in front but he was certainly back 10m based on the pitch markings. Just thought I'd point out the facts. Even if they could adjudicate on that aspect, he wasn't offside

Already been done earlier in the thread, although we're all entitled to an opinion on what constitutes an offside in that circumstance.

Far more apparent offsides within 10 meters of the try line go unpunished in every game and Saturdays was no exception. Is the rule still both feet? Either way most teams struggle to get even one foot close.