As a neutral, this was my view:
1. Gidley was short when he first hit the ground with the ball and at no point did he ground it on the line or over it.
2. Lineham dropped it.
3. Peyroux grounded it.

The TJ was at at fault for number 2 as he had the best view. Joe Cobb was clearly at fault for 1 and 3. How he didn't notice number 1 is beyond me, and for number 3 not to be a try, Peyroux would have had to have mastered the art of floating just above the ground with at least two grown men lying on his back.

in regards to 3... a lot of laws of physics were broken last night, just like been offside from your own actual kick... time travel

For number 2 the TJ missed the forward pass for the knock on try.

For number 3 and the given no try, why did we have to PTB 10 metres back and not "x" amount inches from the line. Was that because Peyroux was tackled over the line with the "ball in levitation".

Fans of every rugby league club can not be happy with the officiating of last nights game. It was an embarrassment to our sport. It wasn't just last night, it's every week. Sometimes Saints themselves benefit from poor decisions. We pass it off with sayings like 'swings and roundabouts', but the fact is, officiating in rugby league needs an overall and even simplifying in parts. For example, the ref goes to the screen because he isn't sure, so stop forcing him to make a decision.

Warrington should be going into next weeks final off the back of a clean kill, and as much as they'll never admit it, that is quite dissatisfying for both sets of fans.

Exactly. I wonder what 'conclusive proof' actually means? It WAS conclusive, because anyone with a brain cell can call that a try. Now I need to look at the rule book, because people seem to be saying it is an entirely visual thing and no common sense or intelligence or working out should come in to play. Maybe change 'conclusive proof' to 'It must be clear enough so a 4 year old can call it'. A court of law does not rely solely on visuals. Whilst the video review should not be a complicated thing, the Video Ref must understand the most basic laws of physics shouldn't he? What a cop out the current system is. And ignoring that, why is everyone saying it was the right call because he went with the ref's on-field decision... when the ref makes the wrong call on the field, two wrongs don't make a right.

Never forget as a kid being in the scoreboard corner night match again Hull KR, injury time & Alex Murphy claimed he touched the ball from the kick right on the flag, no doubts Eric Clay gave it, Hull fans getting ready to leave in joy shouted out never a try ref, Murph replied "read it in the paper tomorrow, it will say TRY"

When you use video depending on speed you see different things, the Lineham try both Thaler & the touch judge had no doubt, people complain when everything is sent to the video referee. The Saints try, Thaler felt it was not a try, and it was up to Cobb to see if the ball was touched down on the line Without Doubt, it was shown many times and I didn't think it showed clearly Without Doubt, do we take away from the referee on the pitch to make a decision? is it left to the video referee completely to make a decision if there is any doubt? I still think Union handle it much more professional then we do all round.

Still feel Wire were the better all round team, Saints still have some weak links, starting off with Owens, Wilkin & Roby are not what they used to be, James has been amazing but there are three hookers better than him. Now we wait & see if the new signings bring what is needed next season, it is about time because recruitment has been poor for a while now compared to many other clubs.

The penalty was because there were players, in front of the kicker, who were within 10 yards of the Warrington player when the ball was collected. The fact that the kicker completed the tackle was neither here nor there. It's the rules, look

[iAn attacking player is offside if he is in front of the ball: if he is in front of a ball which is then kicked, he can be put onside if the kicker subsequently moves ahead of him before the ball is caught. If not, he must stand 10m away from the player who catches the ball (as if he were the acting half-back at a play-the-ball) or be penalised.
[/i

I don't agree with the narrative that saints were robbed. Here's why:

-By hook or by crook, the lineham try would have been given. I like how after barely any scrutiny and about 2 replays the sky commentators decided it definitely wasn't a try. From what I could see, with the limited replays the ball slipped down to his midriff but stayed in contact with his arm without any daylight until hitting the ground. It was scruffy but there was no reason to think he didn't ground it in real time so if the ref did go to the video it would have been handed up as a try and there was insufficient evidence to disallow it.

-The saints try should have been given. Simple. But that try wouldn't have put saints in front. It would have made for a very nervous last 50 seconds for warrington. It's a big hypothetical to assume saints would have gone a hundred metres to score, too big to say they were robbed. Most likely they would have flung it around from side to side and wound up doing a kick over the top on the last play that warrington eventually swept up. That's the probability of what would have happened had the try been given. The incorrect decision meant sants never got the chance to play that out, but probability says warrington still win.

I thought overall warrington were the better team, not by much, and deserved to win, across the season I think they've performed better than saints as well. So no major injustice just a slightly better team getting the bounce of the ball so to speak and beating a marginally worse team. I know that may ruffle a few feathers but saints should look to themselves, they appear to have made no progress from last season.

I'm quite satisfied actually.

You're not a proper RL fan then.

Well the glaring hole in this argument is that the ball was never collected by any Warrington player and Luke Walsh never made a tackle... It bounced and Walsh knocked it back. He was given offside from his own kick. Think about it.

All I can say about this game really is that it's really no surprise that hardly anybody watches Rugby any more. Shambles. Warrington will likely lift the trophy next week in front of the worst ever GF crowd just like Hull did in the CC and the RFL will tout it as a success because they're morons. People watch games last night (and they happen on an almost weekly basis) and know that this sport has absolutely zero modicum of professionalism and won't bother watching again. I'm not sure I will either.

I usually hate to blame the referee and mock people that do, but there's no way I could give my thoughts on the game without doing so. We were robbed. I was sick watching it in the stadium last night and was sicker watching it back on Sky this morning.

Not buying this Warrington were the better team' nonsense either. Over the season, yes. Last night, no. All 3 of their tries came off the back of 2 consecutive penalties. The first two on the back of wrong decision penalties (and a questionable at best grounding) and their 3rd simply wasn't a try. If they were so much better than us then why did they need so much help to get through our (top notch) defence? We broke their line more than they broke ours and scored the most expansive try on the night. But apparently we were dominated and playing negative rugby all night. Rugby fans are laughable in their narratives.

Oh well, here is to another average year of dwindling attendances and viewing figures and even worse next year. Somebody needs to challenge the RFL on a serious level because they are letting this game die.