There is a certain irony to Saints getting shafted by a VR in a Grand Final.

It's not nice is it....

Informative response, what's your interpretation of the rules?

If he had been in the defensive line with only his back foot onside then under new rules he would be deemed offside. Surely they should also then apply this rule to a player chasing a kick? If you're saying the player has to be behind the actual ball then is it both feet or just the back?

It's one of the most stupid RFL rules in the book you only have to be behind the ball both feet. So if the kicker's leg is out stretched the chaser could be well in front of the kicker's body.

The (wrong) video decision is not what lost us the match. Our mistakes - made at vital moments - are what lost us the match. Had Sinfield converted their first two tries, we would have still lost even without that video call. So while it was a wrong decision and I think reflects just how poor the refereeing has been all season for all teams, we can't use that as an excuse and tbh I don't think many Saints fans are doing so. The blame rests entirely with four of our players who had at least one brainfart each at vital points during the match.

You seem far too reasonable and sensible to be a Saints fan!

Those and errrm.. Leon Pryce!. How soon after the start did he go off?

Beats me as to what's happened to the enthusiasm that Saint's always used to have. It always seemed irrepressible to the point of frustration, for opposing fans.

The players they have certainly have the right skill sets. [iWhy [/idon't they have that "Saint's Team Spirit" / winning mentality, no matter who they're playing/how long there is left?

Whilst I know the Whino's defence restricted their play that wasn't the Saints of earlier this year/the past. In fairness it was the Saint'steam I've watched on SKY over the last few months.

Their get up and go seems to have got up and gone

I still can't get over how bad we were screwed by the officials in the 99 & 02 finals.

Withers never touched the ball & Peacock didn't knock on.

So to put things in perspective. Crap as we have been this season we've won as much as Saints.

But as the rules don't specify the "back foot", why pick that?

Surely, the logical choice is the foot kicking the ball? If as the chaser you (iei your feet) are behind or level with the ball, it's fair enough?

Well it could do with clarifying, I've seen 40/20's given where the ball has crossed the 40 but the back foot is inside the 40. So I assumed the ref's judged it on the players back foot rather than where the ball is in the air as contact is made with the boot. Surely that ruling makes it almost impossible for a ref to make a call without slow motion replays?

Been there done that.

Most times things seems to have gone like that here, seems to be money issues behind it, directly or indirectly (and yes, I'm including first-half 2005).

Maybe its happening over your way now?

Good point.

Whilst not under the same part of the RFL rules, a sound, logical (IMHO) point.