It hit Donald. Its a knock on. But benefit of doubt to attacking team.

It turns out that Lee Smith's feet were at least level with McGuires when he kicked through. Benefit of doubt to attacking team.

There was only one angle which showed his position relative to the ball and he was clearly in front on that. The one you are referring to didn't show Smith as he was obscured so there is no telling which frame it was.

I can't understand why they don't use maths to decide offside decisions. Freeze the play on the frame the ball leaves the foot, draw a line across from there and one along from where the receiving player is at that moment. Offside calls aren't subjective, they are black and white.

The fans could see the two lines and there would be no moaning and it would take about 10 seconds to decide rather than 3 minutes.

And a try was given

Are you claiming Bentham was biased?

It's not though, it doesn't matter that it hit Donald, because it was also touching Eastmond when it did. Otherwise we'd have a knock on everytime a tackler touched the ball.

No, I'm claiming he was wrong.

What?

Well clearly after viewing more evidence than you have seen, and with the benefit of being neutral, and also adding to the fact that a try was given, it would appear, that on this occasion Mr Saddended!, that its you who is wrong

Care to point out where in the laws of the game the position in relation to the ball is relevant ? The laws state that you must be behind the kicker, not the ball.

Smith's 2nd try was clearly offside and it was a really poor decision IMO.

Sky even showed it by mapping the position of the players with a line drawn down the screen. Mcguire's position circle was behind the line, whilst Smith's was on the line.

It was clear to see from the replay that Smith was ahead of the ball as it touched Mcguire's boot....well clear to all but Bentham any way.

It was a shame really as it was a great contest up until that point and was looking like a really tense finish with just a point in it. Sadly though that incorrect decision also decided the game.

The offside decision was one which was clearly evident (again to all but Bentham) from the video evidence available and no benefit of the doubt was required. Eastmond's try was not as you couldn't tell if the ball was touched and knocked on before being reclaimed or not. In that instance, benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacking player as the evidence just isn't there to deny the try.

Eastmond was in the process of claiming the ball, not losing the ball. In other words, he was never in possession of the ball to lose it. I don't see how it could possibly be a knock-on, in terms of two players trying to claim a loose ball without it hitting the ground from either player.

That and the two drop goals.

Sport doesn't work like that.

Leeds were 1 point ahead at the time of the decision, the try made it 7 points and effectively meant it was game over. During the next few minutes the second DG was added.

It completely changed the game and the way Saints had to try and play. If the try had been chalked off Saints could have got near enough to at least put over a drop of their own.

And lost by a point.

I don't think the Ozzies will be 'quaking in their boots' after watching that game.

Do you ?