Er, that's because that is not what happened.

When he got the ball he then put one foot on the touchline followed by the other. He didnt have the feet there before catching the ball.

Hence, as usual, you are talking out of your backside.

Take your Saints specs off and watch it again.
Both feet are on the line when he catches the ball (I've just watched it again with mini). It should have been head and feed to Hull.

Similar to when Yeaman picked up the ball with his foot over the dead ball line.

Its swing and roundabouts, sometimes they go your way, sometimes they don't. Hull can't blame the ref for not putting the game to bed when they were 18-0 up.

As for the contraversial penalty. Washbrook did put his hands up to contest the ball and, had a penalty not been given, I'd have accepted that, but he didn't get anywhere near the ball and Ashe came down face first. You can only really argue against a decision if you can't at all see why it was given.

Rogues is spot on about the whiting decision and as regards Yeaman,I think you mean Briscoe,but if you look at that again in slow motion you will find that when he catches the ball his foot is just inside the dead ball line,watch it again.

OM, so you agree Whitings feet WERE on the line when he caught the ball?

I may. I'll stand by my 2nd point though.

I'd have to watch it back, but I'm sure you wouldn't lie to me.

you spend so much time on our forum trying to get your little wigan bias under our radar with your futile gibes . why not start a campaign on the goon site
entitled " Shouldnt the worlds undisputed greatest club have a ground of our own" we could all do with the rest from your rantings

Quick rule check: Assuming they were, does the fact that the ball had bounced in field rather than being on the full affect the outcome decision?

I don't think so. Think of it this way had Whiting stood completely outside the field of play and picked the ball up it would have been head and feed to Hull.

It was just a bad error from the touchjudge / referee and a costly one for Hull.

On the bias. Clarke, Wells, Carney, McDermott and O'Connor all thought that the last penalty was the wrong decision.

Are they ALL biased against Saints?

Oh yes he would. He can't bear the fact that we are STILL above Wigan in the league table.

I've watched that match twice. And it is quite clear that Whiting gets the ball then one foot goes on the touchline followed quickly by the other. The touchie put up his flag and the correct decision was made. It was quite clear to everyone with eyesight and a TV screen, except Rogues. Who probably needs to go to Specsavers. But it's ok, because he's old enough for a free prescription.

However, we are still owed a set of six.

I realise that, there's just something that doesn't seem to flow right with that situaion for me.

Prob not, but despite all the hoo-harr, its not a 100% cut and dry desicion.
We've been on the end of plenty of dubious refs calls, as well as getting some our way. Its just part of the game. As clarky said, that just gets the headlines because it was right at the end.

You need to change your tv or specs. The ball is still at head height and Whitings left foot is on the line (the front part is actually over) By the time he catches it both feet are on the line.

Bye Rogues.

It was the correct decision IMO.

O

I was definatley the wrong decision, no two ways about it.

I mentioned this one. SOmeone told me that the ball had bounced so it did not count???

A friend called me tonight and he said he would check with a referee he knows to see if that is true. There is no doubt however that Whitings feet were on the line when he caught the ball.

The other school of thought is that the rule was changed a few years ago to prevent players just straddling the line and scooping the ball out and claiming the advantage. That maybe the reason for Saints head and feed.

I'll post on here if he gets back to me.

I think they changed the straddling the line rule, but if Whiting did have both feet out and that means it should have been their ball it's an acceptable error. It's a hard thing to see and not the same as them missing 45 degree forward passes every week.

He didn't. Saw it AGAIN on the tries show. One foot and then the other. Ball was in hand. The decision was right.

His feet were on the line when he caught the ball. If you have still got it on sky+ freeze frame it.

Sorry SF, his feet are on the line when he catches it, I watched the tries show last night. Very hard call for the LMan though as Meli was probably obscuring the veiw of the ball.

However, I'm interested to see the results of the rule check, as I think the fact it bounced makes a difference.

I was chatting with a lad I plyed union with and we reckon if it were in that game, it would have been the correct desicion - FWIW.

Perhaps you should have checked before calling it the worst decision of the match when, in reality you don't have a clue if it was or not.

Accepted, but at the time of viewing I was unaware of any rule change, so presumed that as Whiting had caught the ball with his feet on the line he was out of play.

Do you know if the decision was correct and why?

I'm still waiting for a referees confirmation of the ruling, but I may have a better chance of getting a tax rebate.

I think the decision was correct as the rule being referred to was abolished several years ago. But as I wasn't 100% certain I refrained from making rash statements and commenting on it.

It's called trolling and he's good at it.

Rogues = [i"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"[/i