Especially when they don't know the rules and then insist on pedalling their line even after the rules have been explained to them.

Case in point - Lee Smith's second try.

Before the decision the commentary team all felt Smith was fractionally offside, so when the try is awarded they describe it as a contentious or incorrect call.

Moments later they get the explanation for the decision - that the ruling is based on the feet of the player in question relative to the ball i.e. nothing to do with either player's torso or the kicker's back foot. Based on that the player is onside - correct ruling by the VR.

The Sky commentary team though continue to harp on about it being a contentious or harsh call, even making comments about the VR when he collects his medal and then using some completely irrelevant graphic with two circles drawn around the players to 'prove' the VR got it wrong and that he, and presumably Saints, were victims of the VR not having the benefit of this (ahem) 'conclusive' graphic.

On the other hand if you only go to a circus to watch (or listen) to the clowns then ultimately you'll have a disappointing and one-dimensional experience





I'm having a Cantona afternoon.

Can i have one too?

Why did they keep letting Barrie Mac onto the pitch during the game?

He looked like a TV Salesman.

'Hi, do you want your lawn to be a green as this? Then try NEW Superleague weedkiller'

Sky were very brave to try out some new stuff. Hopefully its something that won’t be performed again.

Personaaly I thought Sky's performance was poor last night. It seems that they want to try and do something different everytime for the sake of it and it made the production of the game worse.

I'm still not sure of the camera from the stands, I preferred it when it was on the ground at pitchside. Shame really it was a fantastic game.

Anyone see Clarkey on the pitch beforehand doing his Sky piece. He was looking up at what I assume was the helicopter cam, but with not a camera within about 50 yards of him, and all the gesticulating with his hands, just looked more like one of them preachers you see in town centres

Again, Clarke was the worst culprit here, claiming that "most of Smith's body is in front of the ball". So? Only moments before he claimed that Eastmond's try "has to be given" even though most of us saw on first viewing that he'd been well and truly ploughed into the flag.

Just to add to that, anyone see the BBC take on the decision? They drew a line where McGuire's BACK foot was to in an effort to make it that bit more controversial

Yes

He did look very strange

Every time Clarke opens his gob when Leeds are playing against Saints or Wigan he loses a wee bit more credibility as a non biased pundit. Why doesn't he just admit "I don't like Leeds" and get it off his chest once and for all??

I don't think he is anti-Leeds. He's certainly always spoken highly of Keith anyway (he might be able to hide his bias by appealing to my bias). I think it's just a case of being heavily biased in favour of Saints and Wigan.

He sounded like one as well if you listened to what he was selling.


Clarke stooped to a new low feigning losing his voice to avoid having to say anything complimentary about your back to back to back champions.