So if Whiting had caught the ball in the bottom row of the stand it would still have been head and feed to Saints?

now you're being daft and you know it, but yes, concievably if it hadnt touched the ground, it would only be in touch when he caught it, and he was in contact with the ground, thems the rules as i see it

I was just using that exaggeration to make the point.
Meli kicked the ball, it bounced in the field of play to a player who was outside the field of play. Therefore if you read that ruling the ball has gone into touch and has NOT been carried in by Whiting.
He can't carry it out if he's not in the field of play can he? The ball is "dead"

It was just a wrong call, which actually came from the touchjudge, and trust me I did check with a referee.

The ball wasn't out of play until Whiting touched it! What is wrong with you? If he had of jumped and patted the ball back would it have been play on?

he doesnt have to carry it out, a player can be in touch, reach for a ball still within the field of play and as soon as he touches it (and he is in contact with the ground), the ball becomes in touch. This is not some new magical rule, this has been how it is for as long as i can remember

No it wouldn't have been play on as he had entered the field of play from outside the field of play (he was on the touchline).

Correct,
If a player is stood on the touchline he is considered to be part of the touchline i.e out of play. Saints in that case kicked the ball out of play. Head and feed to Hull.

The TJ got it wrong.

Had he have JUMPED I said! How can he out of play if he has jumped?

The only reason the ball was out of play was because he touched it with his feet on the touchline. I don't know if you're just stupid or winding me up!!!

that cannot be right! the player is considered to be out of play, but not part of the touchline, the emphasis is on the player to be in play or this (as chris saint alluded to) would be open to massive abuse

If he jumped from outside the field of play. IE, from having his foot on the line.

If he jumped and patted the ball and the ball was released before he hit the ground it would have been play on. The point i'm making is that the ball was still in play until it touched Whiting.

If he'd have jumped from in field. The point is that Whiting was in contact with the line immedialtly before he touched the ball. Rogues theory is that this essentially means he IS the line, so the ball went out from the kick, rather than being carried out by whiting.
It feels wrong in this situ, as if the fact the ball bouces should change the desicion, but unless a ref (and I've emailed Cummins's address from the sky sports website) tells me otherwise, I'm inclined to think it should have been Hull's head and feed.

It feels wrong but it may be right

Therefore Whiting is in touch in control of the ball. Either way it's a Saints head and feed. If he had received a pass from a Hull player and was stood on the line it would be a Saints scrum. If he had intercepted a pass and already had his foot on the line it would be a scrum to Saints. There is no difference. He caught the ball and was in touch at the same time in exactly the same way as he would if he'd received a pass. The ref was correct.