And the tackle in touch that was apparently already complete although the ball carrying arm didn't touch the floor..... no Never fixed.

And the one second tackle that was "held" and resulted in Shaul being binned, yet other tackles were allowed to run for 4/5 seconds all game...

Learn the laws of the game, or at least read them before making I'll-advised observations.

So which of these was it then?
When tackled: 2. A player in possession is tackled:

Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.

Upright (b) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball.

Succumbing (c) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play the ball.

Hand on player (d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent already grounded places a hand on him.

The player had come to a stop and defenders were touching him whilst on the ground. That makes the tackle complete whether or not the ball carrying arm was grounded. You can't seriously be suggesting that defenders then had the right to push him into touch.

Clearly D

Shaul was very unlucky with that and you can see why he'd have thought it might be play on. In that scenario his instincts were to tackle the player in case he played on, but the tackle had been completed and the Wakey player had a right to a quick PTB. Thought the yellow was harsh given the context but not sure if refs have the option of just a pen in that situation.

All if's and but's we move on the perfect referee has yet to be born, despite the pressure on both teams it was played in a good spirit and the team with the best drop goal kicker won.

Well said and its been great to see the progress Trin have made with Chessy in charge. Lets hope this is the spur you need to go on to better things.

Absolutely, proper rugby league club who've had to do it the hard way. Just need to get that new ground sorted and then hopefully progress further.

Watching tonights game, im starting to think it might be!!!! Salford have no chance with this ref

Watts got sent off for that

Same video ref

Haha yes its fixed

Our great game is dying , what a complete joke , was always a saints win this, cant believe the pundits , what a joke

Walmsley shouldn't have been sent off. Not a chance.
The obvious problem is that we DID have somebody sent off for the exact same thing. Totally unfair how we had to suffer from it.
And no point putting it on report because as we saw with Watts, It's not gonna result in a ban.

Childs lost control

Completly agree , no chance a sending off , but neither was the salford one , the games going soft , its starting to bore me to be honest , the refs are destroying the game

Has he ever had it?

I dunno, Lannon's hit was pretty late. Definitely had time to pull out of it. I'd have said yellow myself but I can see why it was given. Late hit to the head of a kicker isn't great!

I laughed at the thought of the "is it fixed " but looking back over some of the refs decisions over the last few weeks and tonight , its hard not to think maybe the rfl have decided the top 4!

Didnt real hit him though did he, more of a push to the face , just a soft sending off and advantage saints

Yeah I get you. Although I don't think Saints even needed that sending off, Child is giving them advantages every 5 minutes anyway!
What the fudge was that call all about when Saints charged the kick down and he said it was still the last tackle?? He really isn't a good referee.

I think both of those calls were fair enough, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the Watts incident.

Both the right call .
Only difference is I feel Walmsley should receive a ban .
Childs handled it , how Hicks should of with Watts .