This could be an interesting one for debate, especially as its now irrelevant to the result.

Having looked at the replays, I reckon they did find a frame where he touched it down before the dead ball line.

However, didn't he knock it on prior to that by flicking the forward moving ball with his fingers?

And, wasn't the ball in contact with Webb when he was over the dead ball line, making the ball dead? Not sure Thaler even considered this one?

After Lee Smith was judged onside by the bit of leather on the back of one of his boots in 2009, I was happy that benefit of the doubt should award that try.

Would have been harsh not to give it.

Regarding Webb making it dead, in those circumstances does Webb have to have an hand on the ball to make it dead?

I thought it was a marginal knock-on (as much as Burrow's vs Wire for Hall's disallowed try was) before Makenson touched it down but can see why it was given and, given the result, can just shrug my shoulders.

He knocked it backwards into Webb who was sliding along the grass and then it went forward so it wasnt a knock on,he grounded it just before the dead ball line.

But another twist to that, is that the ball was touching Webb when Webbs feet were out of play and before Makinson touched down, so as earlier mentioned, is the ball dead?

It was a knock on by Makinson. He couldn't propel it backwards with anything like sufficient force to prevent it traveling forwards in relation to the ground. In addition Webb was in contact with the ball while he was out of play which should have made the ball dead in any case. Bentham's gut ruling was correct in this case (it appears the 'captain's challenge' is creeping in by the back door) and it would have been interesting to hear Ian Smith's commentary on the red button option on SKY.

Where would the GF be though without officials making controversial calls to keep it interesting. The earlier Dixon 'no try' should have been ruled offside against Moore resulting in a penalty to Leeds.

Correctamundo!

But it didn't matter really!

rlhttps://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/9_touch_and_touch_ingoalrl

The rules state 'The ball is in touch in-goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch in-goal line, or any object on or outside the touch in-goal line.'

No try

As for saying it was a knock on, i think that would have been a tough call.

Oh and congratulations

Thought it was a knock on, also thought it was in touch but wouldnt have complained if we had lost because of it. Its Webbs mistake to leave it to the officials.

According the Charnley/Wigan logic, had Makinson not touched it, it would have been a tap twenty restart as Webb made no attempt to play the ball and the fact he did was an accident. Which would clearly have been a ludicrous situation and simply highlights how poor a call the Charnley one was.

I thought it looked a try on the big screen. Why was the Dixon try not give?

Dixon try was a knock-on. He dragged the ball forwards along the ground as he gathered it in. By the way, Saints other try should not have stood either as Wheeler was clearly offside from the kick and was within 10 metres of Jones-Bishop so play should have restarted with a Leeds penalty rather than a Saints scrum. All academic now, of course, as the result was not affected in the end. Great game between the best two clubs of the SL era!

what if leeds had taken a quick drop out

Fully agree.

Firstly Makinson made contact with the ball (but with no downward pressure) as the ball was being propelled forward towards the goal line. This means it was a knock on.

Secondly when he did eventually apply downard pressure Webb's feet were over the goal line so out of play.

And thirdly, when Makinson applied downward pressure it appeared that the tip of the ball was touching the goalline, although the view was not decisive, there was enough doubt raised for a No Try decision to be awarded.