What a joke. How can the RFL let him video ref Saints? Thats 2 tries Saints have had that shouldn't have been given.

Incredibly obvious bias in that last decision. One of the worst VR tries ever.

Justice has been done with Boyle's try at least. If Saints had got 1 or 2 points because of that decision, there would have been a riot.

There is just no reason why Ganson has to Ref this game and make a joke of our sport.

mistress Ganson is loved so much down sarf He has His own song.

The Moore try decision was a shocker, but you have to feel he was feeling guilty about the Eastmond no try decision. He has given that for obstruction, yet the dummy runner hit a gap and it was the choice of the defender to tackle him. They also didn't cross each other in any way.

Despite some quality off the cuff stuff from Salford, that has got to be the worst advert for Super League ever, comically poor defending from both sides.

But when the defender adjusted, he did get his hands on Eastmond but couldn't effect the tackle due to being impeded by the option runner.

Thought the tense last 20 minutes or so made for a good spectacle to be honest.

The Scott Moore try shows everything that's wrong with the video ref. For me the fault lies with the on-field ref. They think that with the crutch of the video ref they don't need to get in good positions. We also have the ridiculous situation in Super League where, once the try has been referred to the video ref, he HAS to make a decision. In the NRL the Moore try would have been a Ref's Call; putting the onus on the ref to be in the right place and have an opinion that he is just checking with the video ref.
Once referred, we didn't see the try NOT touch the floor and so Benefit of the Doubt Try was the right and only decision Ganson could make.
For me let's get rid of the video ref, have two refs on the field, and coach them to be in the right position!!

To be fair (and it's not often I'll say that about Ganson), as a Salford fan at the ground (so not hearing what the commentators were saying, or having the benefit of a really clear view of the replays), I expected a benefit of the doubt try from what I saw.



To the RL purist maybe, but I got a text at the end from a colleague who had watched on TV and thought it was an amazing game.

Isnt he from st helens

I did my nut at that decision. There's clearly a leg underneath the ball, which then immediately pops out at the top of the tackle, secured by the defenders. There was no way in hell it could have hit the floor. It's ridiculous that a self-proclaimed Saints fan officiates Saints matches, and always has been.


Disagree hugely. As a neutral (with a soft spot for Salford and obviously some {lots} of bias against Saints), I enjoyed it thoroughly. So what if the defences weren't on top - sometimes it's good to see lots of tries and see who can come out on top. Plenty of good attacking, some nice tackle busts, offloads, free running - all in all a good game.

No consistency as usual, saw the try on SSN and it was less of a try then Rob Burrow vs Wigan which was disallowed!

i agree with that for me it looked no try! but as the rule states that if u cant tell or see thats where the benefit of the doubt came in. Soon as i saw it refered to the video ref theres only one result, the correct call!

There becomes a point where there's so much doubt you can't really give benefit. For me there was no way that ball could have hit the floor so I fail to see how benefit of the doubt was applied. Maybe it's my nice picture but there was a leg underneath it and from there the ball went upwards.

All in all a cracking game

How on earth can that be "benefit of the doubt"? It can't! To give a try, you have to say that probably in between failing to ground the ball, when it was so clearly and indisputably on top of the defender's leg, to a second later when it was way up off the ground, the attacker got it down. Put like that, you are making a decisionfor which there is no, repeat NO evidence.

On what can you base a view that even though the ball was on the leg, and then ended up way above ground, probably it was touched down? Mad. Totally barking.

But there was a shot where you couldnt see the ball, now im with you i dont think he got it down either but the rules say its a try, so it was the right call

It cant be benefit of the doubt if there was no indication whatsoever he got it down

There should be a benefit of the doubt ruling for the defence too.

Because the ball disappears for a bit behind the bodies there was no way of telling if it was grounded, it just seemed unlikely, in this case the benefit of the doubt could be given to the defending team, rather than have to go to the attacking team as per the current options.

The rules state that it is a try unless you can offer firm evidence to the contrary, and there was no indication that he had not got it down. I'm with you btw I dont think he scored either.

Ah, them good ol' Rugby League Goggles. A high scoring, end to end match with plenty of attractive, attacking play by both sides, but it was all down to poor defence rather than clever attacking play.

One of my mates who has no interest in RL watched the game and really enjoyed it, and has asked me if there are any games coming up that we can go to.

But Saddened! knows best I suppose.

The try by Scott Moore should never have been allowed,defo no try.

The Eastmond "No Try" was the correct decision
[url=http://img130.imageshack.us/i/ruled.jpg/[/url
From page 39 of the Laws of the Game - Section 15 Player Misconduct - Notes

Why is it Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team? If no one can see if the ball was grounded surely it should benefit of doubt to the defending team i.e. held up