Why the hell did Salford do that ridiculous short kick off when we'd got it back to 20-30?? We got easy yards and scored in that set. There was absolutely no need to that in that situation. Can't recall who did it be he certainly wants bollocking. They've only themselves to blame for me.

I'm not exactly sure he meant to do it tbh.
It was Inu and he had just been on the deck with a very nasty eye injury that he couldn't see out of. Hastings was all set to take it but he ran back and took it himself. He also has a penchant for kicking it out on the full so I reckon he put a bit less on it....

That was a cracking game - had pretty much everything, and was super entertaining for the neutral.

With regards the non-try though - when two teams have put so much effort and guts into performances of that standard, it's heartbreaking that the result is decided by a VR decision that was quite clearly, without any shadow of doubt, plain wrong; Mr Child, like every other person watching the game, could see that he lost control of the ball - so why not just say, "nope - he's lost that - I'm overturning the on-field decision?"

My view, long held, is that having the on-field ref make a call (guess) on an incident which, by virtue of sending it upstairs, he's already admitting he didn't see - fundamentally alters the mechanic of the VR review system; the VR will naturally veer away from contradicting his fellow ref, so we end up with blatantly unfair results like that, which could have a serious impact on the finishing position of the team on the wrong end of it.

Shameful that one of the most exciting games of the season, was decided on a self-evidently erroneous VR decision. Hard lines Salford.

It would not have decided anything if mistakes from players had not let saints back into the game. Yet the players get a free ride whilst refs get it in the neck. Shock horror.

Thought Salford were a nicely balanced side, a good backline and a hard working pack just need a bit more performance consistency perhaps. Play any other team and there was going to be a win all over it, on that team performance salford should be a top 5 side still plenty of games left to make that happen.

I've no argument with it not being a try. My issue is everyone pinning a win or a lose on 1 element of a game out of the whole 80 minutes.

As for the rule book. That's the problem the ref is constrained by the rules.

Its not beyond reason to think that if saints had been denied that they would not have got another opportunity. The goal kick took the full minute and the play the balls were pedestrian.

Either way Salford did enough to win but that's not always the way it works out.

Except that in an evenly fought contest, a game that is won by that small margin - yes, win or lose is based on 1 element; Saints can hardly argue against that, given that last minute, clawed back wins are their raison d'aitre; Never Write Off and all that jazz?!

I have no skin in this particular game - but I hate to see a blood and guts, highly entertaining game like that won on a 100% erroneous decision - it's entirely unnecessary and damages the perception of the sport. If the ref had given the try live in play - fair do's - because it was at speed and he could be forgiven for missing the dropped ball; for the VR to give it after multiple replays was just unforgivable.

But it’s an easily fixed element of the game that doesn’t have to be wrong.
It’s not easy to get players to never make an error.
It’s not easy to get referees to never make an error.
It’s a piece of p|ss to to get video refs to never make an error.

Agreed. I reckon it's this season we have to go for broke because Watto can't keep pulling rabbits out of hats like he has been doing forever. Our budget right now for next season is painfully low I believe...