E=MC2

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that its now irrelevant whether it was a try or not I dont think thats the point, at least it shouldn't be.

Clearly there were a number of issues, at a pinch he got downward pressure before the whitewash, and that is giving Makinson the benefit of the doubt. However, Webb had it dead and there was a knock on. However you cut it it should have been no try.

Now suppose Saints had won by 4 points. Is itnot an issue anymore? Would we be happy?

The fact is that this was the wrong decision and just because it didnt affect the overall outcome of the game shouldn't matter. Thaler should be hauled over the coals for not been able to make a competant decision even with technology at his finger tips. Why does it only become an issue if it affects the outocme of the game. These errors should be stamped out reagardless.

Completely agree

It didn't matter in this case but what if it had. If the rule states that Brent Webb being in contact with the ball makes the ball dead then that is the rule. No ifs. No buts. No 'it doesn't matters'.

Also, I really don't like the way Phil Bentham changed his mind because James Roby told him to. James Roby is not the captain.

as my grandmother used to say

if "Ifs and ands were pots and pans there would no need for dishes"

you would argue if you did not get it and you would if you had it awarded against you. my gut reaction was how the REF called it

forgive my lack of knowledge

But Is Roby the captain at the time when Jammer was on the Pitch and ask the Ref to look at it?

I would agree with that. I've no problem with a referee going back on a decision provided it's the correct one. I thought the Dixon one was a try. He drags the ball towards himself, but has control over it and downward pressure. Makinson didn't knock on but as mentioned I did wonder why it wasn't ruled dead because of Webb's foot and the ball touching his body. Daft decision from him to not ground it though, could have been a Meli-esque feck up were it not for Shenton's injury giving Leeds the scent of blood.

I've just posted about Shenton's injury on another thread. Changed the game and looked nasty. I like to think we had gained a little bit of momemtum prior to that but it certainly helped.

Agree with Dixon - BOD for me as there is a moment where it's under his body and you can't see if it touches the ground. Not enough to disallow it though.

I think Makinson had his hand under the ball and flicks it forwards at one point. At the moment he is sliding in that direction so to stop it travelling forwards would be very difficult. He was helped by Webb being there providing the argument that it went backwards. Had Webb not been there I think it still goes forwards!

The Dixon 'no try' call was right for me but for the wrong reason. Moore was in front of the kicker and remained inside the 10 metres throughout. Leeds have had these type of calls go against them this season and I'm not sure why this was any different to those.

It never even appeared to cross the mind of the video referee from his deliberations and the eventual ruling denied Leeds a relieving penalty. Why Smith (the games best video referee by far IMO) was sat doing commentary on the calls for SKY was a strange one. Like the idea but would have preferred the roles reversed personel wise for the biggest game of the season.

if webb had done his job this thread wouldn't be here. he goes from the sublime to the awful in minutes

I said that at the time. Even the saints players didn't seem to appeal until the fans behind the goal saw the replay on the big screen and went mental - makes the ref look a joke to me.

As for the decision - at the game I couldn't tell owt from the big screen but having seen the replay I think Tvoc is spot on in his summary on Pg1

i do sometimes think the video ref refuses to look at the full picture, if he was asked to see if the ball was grounded before the line then thats all he looks for

in the nfl if a play is reviewed EVERYTHING is looked at and a decision made and perhaps that needs to be the same for super league

So let me get this right. The Dixon try was, in your opinion, wrongly ruled out? So therefore, at the next vaguely diffciult decision Saints should be awarded a try?

No no no no no.

This just makes it worse. Thaler thinks he got the first one wrong so just 'gives' a try for the second one to even it up!

If Leeds were to score a lucky try, lets say a kick that comes off a defender into a Leeds players arms, should we then let the other team score to 'even itself out'?

Two wrongs dont make a right.

First, as others have said, if Webb deals with the kick through when he has chance this thread never happens.

Other than that, there is an issue with the referral system here, can the video ref only look at what he's asked to look at, does anyone know? If so, it was probably a try for me, as any micr-knock-on before hand would have been too pedantic for my liking. However, had he looked at the wider situation, the ball was dead.

On the Dixon no-try, I thought not giving it was one of those over-pedantic video ref decisions. I'sd have given that one. A'd as soon not see tries ruled out for offside against people having no influence on the play.

The knock on is debatable, the above is beyond dispute.

Video refs: get rid for me. I can stomach errors by the on field ref, however wrong, but when the VRs continue to get decisions of this magnitude wrong, what's the point in employing them?

Very true. What the feck was he playing at, not touching it down? He was never going to prevent a drop out with the tackler that close on wet ground.