Lomax had his hand on the ball just before Richards went to play it, causing Richards to drop it.

It probably did even out overall, but in the first 20 mins they had every single call. It was only our superb defense that kept Silverwood, er I mean Saints, from scoring.

Same thing happened yesterday when Danny Orr "charged down" and then ran 50 metres or so.

It was a clear knock-on as he "played at" the ball by virtue of stopping the kick.

Yes, an oxymoron.

was deffo a charge down...he moved towards the kicker.

and the obstruction during sams "no try" was an obstruction.
i called it before it went to the video ref......i spotted it, and knew it would be chalked off

Not quite right on the Graham one. Graham was not involved in the ptb, but he was in the way. He shouldn't have been there and by getting in the way of the marker (even by standing still) it was a penalty and the right decision.

Yes exactly as I saw it. I couldn't believe Kear. I sometimes wonder if some of them ever played the game with the rubbish they come out with. Stevo is another.

Also, if they touch the ball it disallows a drop goal attempt.

We actually got a caning in the penalty stakes on Saturday, especially in the first half.

Not any more. That has been changed.

just watched it again and it certainly looks like a charge down to me. baffling decision

When did they change that rule ?

....or the one where Pryce and Lockers were contesting the high ball right next to the saints post that Sam put up after the Lomax injury stoppage.

Pryce facing his own line knocks it over his shoulder with his hands (therefore upfield) on to Lockers (therefore a knock on) which then rebounds into touch.

Silverwood asks the video ref for clarification and he gives a saints 20m tap......nothing to do with the video ref being Ganson I suppose

.....just sayin'

Thats like asking Bent...ham to video ref a Wigan Warrington game......oh hang on, wait a minute

I'd have said it was played at - he ran at the kicker, so if a ball hits you it's because you're putting yourself in front of the ball.

The Sam 'try' was a harsh call. He still had two men in front who should've/could've stopped him scoring and they only complained after he touched it down.

Agree with Finch offside and the ball last bounced off Lockers head for the other one.


Just watching t'other game on I-Player. Great try from Chase. Shame they aren't going.

Finch wasn't offside on that kick downfield. The Slug picks the ball up about 1-2 metres inside the ingoal. At the exact same moment, Finch was about 1-2 metres outside the 10 metre, line, and therefore at least 12-13 metres metres away, and therefore outside the required 10 metres. Difficult to spot in real time, but easy with freeze-frame on a recording, but ironically one of the few decisions where Silverwood didn't use the technology available which could give a clear view.

Seems like every time he went to the video ref, the decision came down against us.

Still, we won and we're going to Wembley, so it could have been worse! I'm just glad that one of those decisions didn't cost us the game.

I can't say for certain , two or three seasons ago.

Even so, the player who fields the ball has to RUN 10 metres before an "off side" player can tackle him. Also, he mustn't come within 10 meters of him until the player has run at least 10 metres.

I don't remember Finch complaining.

In that instance, doesn't Finch have to hang back the 10m and not go close to the attacker if he is still offside? Did he encroach into this 10m gap once Wellens picked the ball up?

Not 100% sure on the rules here, but I'm sure he has to hang back unless the kicker shoots up.

EDIT@ apologies, hadn't read the post above which confirms my thinking!

Also, on the point about RS not using the VR, why would he for an offside? He used it for try issues and re-starts, not for things like offsides, we'd be there all bloody day otherwise!