Smiths feet are behind the ball which is the reason it was given but ATEOD we won get over it!!!!!!

you really need to get over it! we all accept the call was a 50/50 and as with most vid ref calls they can and do go either way! To say there should have Been only one out come to the referral is nieve, blinkered and down right ignorant!

You are just not gonna have it that Bentham refed it to the letter of the law. Instead you think you have been robbed.

Most fans dont have a real clue what rules the refs are using as the only feedback we get most of the time is what the idiots on sky or the BBC tell us. Bentham gave the reason for his decision(both the players feet were behind the ball, which they were) and those sky fools just ignored the refs feedback via the director!

Thats why people like you are posting this crap, you dont know the rules! You only think you do. Your ignorance is painful! your own players don't have a problem with it. Why? Because they know the rules.

As you say that red line might not be 100% but it shows you it was increadibly tight! And noway can you rule it out without doubt! It's a stone wall 50/50 it went Leeds way.

dry your eyes mate!
I know it's hard to take!
I know how much the pain hurts!
But it's over!

ill tell you what pal..if that had been the other way round and it had been saints who scored the try..you'd have been on here now screaming blue murder..trouble is though if it had been us he would have disallowed it...we all know the little fart leans to leeds.

You've obviously not watched any leeds games that bentham and ganson have reffed this year.
Don't play the "woah is me" card we deserved to win and lets not forget the penalty against senior for the invisible barge!!
It was a tough call but when the reason was explained and you see the different angles and viewpoints without listening to the saints cheerleading squad in commentry it was a try!

Well clearly there was doubt wasn't there given the amount of time Bentham looked at the try.

Like I said before given the absence of the overhead shot which was obscured there was no other course of action possible other than to award the try. From some view it looked on/from some views it looked off.

Going back to teh Eastmond try that was disallowed, ignoring the tackle by Sinfield but the issue of whether the foot was in touch/not was the same. By some angles it looked in touch and by some it didn't. Had sinfield not made the tackle that try would have had to have been awarded

can i throw in the name MELI too .....

Lol @ Meli's positioning there. Big hole where it is painfully obvious where the 3 Leeds players are going to attack.

So you post a photo which appears to show smith in front of the kicker and the ball.

Your point being?

It shows smith behind the ball. But that's not the point. The point is as I've said many times is that at the very least/best/worst however you want to put it, it was a very very very tight call. A pure 50/50! It went Leeds way. No injustice, Bentham specifies the reason for the decision on sky via the director then hemmmings, after the game long and wilkin have both said it was a fair call.

There's about 6 points in there for you!

are you gonna accept that? No you just keep showing yourself up for what you are.

Did Stevie Wonder draw the red line ? The referee should have used the white line and the relative positions of Maguire and Smith to rule the try out.

As for the game Leeds just edged it and Saints will rue individual errors that cost them.

At first I thought it was a dodgy call but the rule is where the ball is and where the try scorers back leg is, in this case if you pause it, its clearly a try IMO.

Also had saints scored and lost by one point or something you would have more right to be annoyed but even without the try Leeds still win 11-10.

You are making yourself sound really really stupid mate
Have you honestly NEVER read one of Syd's previous posts?