Agreed, the thing that annoyed me most was Phil Clarke. All season long when a similar incident has ocurred in a game he has always, without fail, told us about the rules whereby the player is only offside according to his feet not his body.

Yet on this one he immediately says that Smiths body is offside

Agreed - there are those who will never take the blinkers off - thought Bentham had no choice to give it after watching it over and over again. The thing that annoys most people about such decisions is that in another game, a different VR or even Bentham himself may give a no try it was that close.



As for Sky i'm pretty sure it's in the sky mandate to hype up and create some hysteria about something. It's the same with their football coverage were a lot of nothing events are hyped up by their commentry and studio team in an attempt to whip up some hysteria.

I agree! I did not say whether I thought he was right or wrong, but to ever describe the decision as shocking is wrong. It was tough, not shocking. It would have been the same had he given it either way, because it was such a close call.

That's because none of those employed by Sky are actually "experts" - they're personalities.



Stevo is unable to grasp the most basic concepts of the game such as how wingers adjust their defensive positioning to respond to the movement of their centre - asking him to grasp the laws of the game is like expecting a penguin to peel an orange.



Clarke is a walking stats machine, but again lacks understanding of the finer points of the game. He can tell you how often a team do something but he's stuck if you ask him why it happens, unless it fits one of his preconceived theories.



McDermott & O'Connor? Funny lads, great craic but display the sort of tactical insight you would expect from front rowers.



It's only when Sky get coaches involved - which I thought the BBC did brilliantly with Noble and Morgan for its highlights show, and that Sky used to get with Tony Rae, that you get any sort of worthwhile insight into a game.

Had the try been disallowed, do we honestly think that Saints were going to go down the other end and score?



They didn't look like it all night.



I'd have taken 11-10 just as much as 18-10

I agree. It is also the hypocrisy of it all with the Eastmond try. Looking at it again the ball changes direction/trajectory prior to it reaching Scott Donald. There was no hysteria after this contentious try was given just an acceptance of the VR's decision. I am sick fed up with Clarke, Stephenson & Hemmings and it took Brian Carney to bring some perspective into the analysis.

Note Clarke kept his mouth shut about cheating after St Helens interference at the play the ball and Cunningham's antics on Saturday.

His reasoning that the Eastmond no-try should be given as you shouldnt penalise good play was laughable at best.

Who knows ? Leeds may have scored again, Saints may have piled on more pressure. At 11-10 the game was still up for grabs. As it was Leeds try was correctly given so we'll never find out.

We'd have been 1 point ahead and they'd have been starting their set around our half way line.



A penalty would've been enough for them to take the lead. A drop goal would've levelled the scores.



Saints went as close as you can get on two occasions at both corners.



It would have been a completely different end to the game had the try not been given.

Its not like Saints have ever got the benefit of a big call in a GF is it? cough Voluntary Tackle Cough

Well yes, that's kind of how cause and effect works...

Read the ****ing post I was responding to, ****.