Where have all the know nothing flannery haters gone?

As a Leeds fan I have to agree....the quick play the ball behind a dominant pack is what allows us to demolish teams....last night you did it to us. (The amount of possession, repeat sets and penalties conceded by a 'woeful' Leeds helped too).

You obviously raised your game ...as a lot of teams will do against the "champions" (esp because of three recent GF's

). Credit to you though for the seemingly patched up team epitomised by Graham's tracking back on Burrow at the end. It's spirit like that which makes me admire these guys who play our game. They ALL deserve to keep their places: the importance of a good goalkicker was also highlighted. Sinny had a relatively off day; your young lad was awesome.

I am trying to convert my Rugby Union immersed and indoctrinated son....watching Leeds against Hull in the cup and then your win over us is far more convincing than the spoiling wrestling tactics that Huddersfield and Wigan have recently perfected. Good luck to them for taking advantage(can't blame them)....BUT the RL really does need to try getting some clear ground rules established as to what is acceptable. Two refs would help...but we already struggle with the levels of refereeing competency and consistency....how on earth would we find enough of the calibre we need ?? The 'wrestle' looks like it's here to stay unfortunately.

my Rugby Union immersed and indoctrinated son

Ooops ! I meant my stepson.

....My son back in Leeds is has adopted the right 'religion' of course.

not a lot to say thought saints played really well especially and worringly with quite a few missing. We were poor but thing that had a lot to do with saints out playing us and putting us under lots of pressure. Think it's bit disrespectful to saints to just say we were poor. We played as well as we were allowed.

rubbish. Unforced errors, no repeat sets, poor disipline. totally robbed for the no try obstruction when there wasn't one. we never bounced back from that. we let ourselves down. Plus sanits playing well. bulid pressure, fast up the middle, better disipline. Good kicking game. it's not like both teams were on top form and saints nicked it! we got hammered cos we were crap and saints were good!

There was a clear obstruction, IMO. The Leeds player (JJB?) ran straight into the Saints player (Moore?), and knocked him back and stopped him putting McGuire under more pressure and possibly getting to him. The Leeds player could have quite easily angled his run slightly better and gone into the gap at the side of the Saints player. Definite obstruction, IMO.

your having a laugh mate you see it every week. he would have got nowhere near mcguire. jjb runs his line moor gambles on him getting the ball. It was a miss read. it was a very poor call from child. But some you get some you don't ! Let's see if we both have the same convictions when the call goes the other way for our respective teams?

He ran straight into Moore, I didn't say that Moore would have got to McGuire, but he would have put more pressure on McGuire, which may have resulted in a poorer pass. Leeds are the first to throw there hands in the air and scream for obstruction when the opposition scores a try, on this occasion, i think it was obstruction. Moore doesn't tackle JJB, he is drifting across, and JJB stops him moving up towards McGuire, hence it's obstruction. JJB could have avoided Moore, IMO.

I watched the game this morning and didn't think the was anything wrong with the try. I couldn't tell at the game but on tv I think it was pretty harsh not to give the try.

I also think saints had a try not given by video ref. The ball touched grass and should have been a try.

At the ground, even having watched the big screen, I couldn't believe we got the decision for the Hall no-try. Having watched the match on telly this morning, I can see more of an argument for disallowing it but we'll undoubtedly see tries of a similar nature being awarded so I can understand the upset coming from the Leeds fans.

I was surprised at the KC decision at the ground, and since watching the replay. There is an angle which seems to show quite clearly the ball touching the ground. While I accept the other angles suggested no try, surely on the basis that one angle did show a grounding, it should have merited a Benefit of Doubt decision at least?

On balance, the two calls evened each other out IMO.

I'd agree with that.