How on earth can that be "benefit of the doubt"? It can't! To give a try, you have to say that probably in between failing to ground the ball, when it was so clearly and indisputably on top of the defender's leg, to a second later when it was way up off the ground, the attacker got it down. Put like that, you are making a decisionfor which there is no, repeat NO evidence.

On what can you base a view that even though the ball was on the leg, and then ended up way above ground, probably it was touched down? Mad. Totally barking.

But there was a shot where you couldnt see the ball, now im with you i dont think he got it down either but the rules say its a try, so it was the right call

It cant be benefit of the doubt if there was no indication whatsoever he got it down

There should be a benefit of the doubt ruling for the defence too.

Because the ball disappears for a bit behind the bodies there was no way of telling if it was grounded, it just seemed unlikely, in this case the benefit of the doubt could be given to the defending team, rather than have to go to the attacking team as per the current options.

The rules state that it is a try unless you can offer firm evidence to the contrary, and there was no indication that he had not got it down. I'm with you btw I dont think he scored either.

Ah, them good ol' Rugby League Goggles. A high scoring, end to end match with plenty of attractive, attacking play by both sides, but it was all down to poor defence rather than clever attacking play.

One of my mates who has no interest in RL watched the game and really enjoyed it, and has asked me if there are any games coming up that we can go to.

But Saddened! knows best I suppose.

The try by Scott Moore should never have been allowed,defo no try.

The Eastmond "No Try" was the correct decision
rlrl
From page 39 of the Laws of the Game - Section 15 Player Misconduct - Notes

Why is it Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team? If no one can see if the ball was grounded surely it should benefit of doubt to the defending team i.e. held up

Give over, that isn't what happened, Dixon didn't pass him the ball and he wasn't running in front of him to block tacklers, he was an unused dummy runner who the Salford defender made a poor call on and decided to tackle. Eastmond ran parallel to a dummy runner. The Salford defender bought the dummied pass and stuck his shoulder into a dummy runner who was hitting a gap in the line. That's poor defending, he chose to tackle Dixon, Dixon didn't run into him.

But the Moore try decision should be explained by Ganson or whoever on Boots n All. I'm all for BOD, but you need some doubt to apply that surely? I'd also like to know how all those officials missed the Leon Pryce knock on for another of the Saints tries.

It all backs up what I've said for ages, the officials in SL are just there because they've put their hands up to do it. There is no consistency at all and it's all very amateurish.

That is exactly what happened, bar the fact he didn't pass the ball, which is actually irrelevant. Dixon went further downfield than Eastmond and so was immediately offside and blocked defenders sliding across.
If Dixon had stayed behind Eastmond the try would have been legitimate.

If the Salford player (Holdsworth?) went for Eastmond I'd agree with you. He tackled Dixon, that's not obstruction, it's poor defending. He didn't even attempt to tackle Eastmond.

But he was blocked from even attempting a tackle on Eastmond by a St Helens player in an offside position.

This is the whole point than the wannabe armchair refs cant comprehend. Its benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. No one knows for sure other than the players involved if the ball was grounded or not. The armchair refs on here will claim it wasnt grounded but the ball disapeared and its impossible to say with any certainty. Therefore the correct call was made by the letter of the law, benefit of the doubt to the attaqcking team