this ain't perfect



but its where Bentham stopped it to judge

and the red line is close to being in perspective, closer than the other one anyway

and smiths one foot on the floor is behind the ball

so he got the decision right

the only surprise for me is he found a reason to give the try when the video ref will usually look for evidence to disallow

on the body language of everyone on the field, without a video the try is given anyway in my opinion

Wally is clearly a Wigan player in that photo so could not have been offside anyway, although what he was doing on the pitch in the first place is another question - can you zoom in a bit, is it Phil Clarke in one of his old kits ?

Here's a thought.

If you run the footage on from that point, do any of the Leeds players around where the play the ball was encroach within ten metres before Lee Smith collects the ball?



Also, Brent Webb was ahead of the play the ball and making no effort to get back onside for Smith's first try so that should have been disallowed as well.

I thought both were, but I was in the East stand 100m away. On the replays it is a marginal descision for the first, correct descision for the second.

Only the first step appeared to touch the line when viewed from behind Eastmond the other two angles used were inconclusive (one was blurred anyway on freeze frame) but there appeared evidence enough there to say he was in touch but Bentham played on and Leeds needed Sinfield and the corner flag to save the try.



In both instances were they interfering in play and would that make a difference?

You either listen to the REF ONLY or you can switch to the SKY commentary, but not both at the same time. Also you cant hear when they go down to Bill, Barrie or Terry.

Just watched it again. No interference or move towards the ball from any of the Leeds players.

Most of the Saints players just stood and watched as well. James Graham was the worst culprit near the post. He was just on a stroll and watched Smith go straight past him and watched him touch down with his hands on his hips.

he does, it's amazing Smith virtually runs at Graham who makes no attempt at anything, granted it would be tricky to hold someone up from that point, but his inactivity suprised me when i noticed it.

He was probably shattered from all those wonderful metres he'd piled up in the stats over the course of the season, because that is what's important you know.

To be fair to Graham it only appears that way when filmed side on. No way he could've got near IMO.

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.