Catalan were awful. Looked like they hadn't played a game for 5 years. So slow and narrow. How can a team have so much ball in such good position and only score one try and a drop goal? It's a good job we dropped the ball a lot and conceded a ridiculous amount of penalties.

This Carney best be good to improve that lot Jean!

Catalans were lucky it was first game of the season. Saints blew plenty of chances that once they get going, they won't.

If that game was Round 12 or summat, they'd have racked up a cricket score.

To be fair Saints looked no better than Catalans
Home advantage saw Saints through.

Saints & Catalan will get better.

SL isn't won in round one, however much every minute may matter.

To be fair they did score 2 tries, it's the incompetence of the referee's why the score was so low on Catalans behalf.

Catalans were missing not only a possible future Man of Steel, Todd Carney, but also a past contender for Man of Steel and a 2012 Dream Team selection, in one Scott Dureau. Those two should have been the halves who would have directed the team around the park.

Add to that the very early loss of the attacking talents of centre Villiami Sione Tonga, and you can see why the Catalans attack was not very potent.

I am hopeful that Carney's calf injury is not very serious, that Dureau's groin is going to mend soon, and that we will soon see those two, along with Tonga, playing havoc with opposition defences.

Meanwhile let's look forward to seeing Terence Campese and Albert Kelly setting off brilliant attacks by Hull KR against Leeds this weekend.

Saints were missing potential man of steel Luke Walsh, so what? You can't really call Dureau a miss for the Dragons last night because he didn't play all last season so they are well used to being without him and Bosc is no mug (and is a halfback).

There were a number of injury stoppages - one or two I doubt were injuries at all tbh - and too many penalty stoppages. Bentham got carried away before halftime. Every team that plays rugby league is usuall offside on the line in defence but for some reason he decided to repeatedly pull Saints up for it during that spell before halftime. He was in error to do that. If he had taken the same approach throughout the match we would have still been at Langtree Park now.

Please do clarify.

I always thought that the players scored tries or missed them or dropped the ball, especially if no one is there to tackle them, not match officials but then it's never too late to learn.

I will admit though that a good defence prevents teams scoring tries, but I've never seen a match official tackle a player so far.

You help would be appreciated

If a player scores & the ref/VR come up with a baffling 'tackled in the air' decision that to me counts as the officials stopping a perfectly good try. What would you say?

There was contact but I wouldn't have called it tackled, not by any stretch. I thought they had turned it down for a knock on in the air by the Dragons that appeared in a video angle we couldn't see from the West Stand (which equates to most video angles since the screen is so small!). When I watched the match back I was surprised by the reason given.

However, was Swift in touch for the try he was disallowed? The one where he ran along the touchline I mean, not the one where he tried to ground the kick. From behind he was very very close but he didn't look to be in touch. The ref didn't go to the screen at all for that as the touch judge stuck his flag up.

I'd say evens on the wrongly disallowed tries, both could have gone either way. Both were disallowed as it happens.

Erm I have to agree with most of that.

Your bit on the offside is accurate too. I would challenge anyone to find a set of 6 in RL where there was ever an incidence when all the players where onside.


I'm starting to worry. I don't often agree with you this much.

Disagree on the offsides. Saints were ridiculous during that period. They weren't just a step in front of the line and it was often more than 1 player and often the players were directly involved in the tackle or play.
Bentham was spot on in that period of play.

To begin with you are incorrect about where the play was happening in relation to the offsides. The offsides which were causing Bentham particular difficulty were at the opposite side to where the Dragons were attacking: it was Percival and Makinson who were getting dinged. The Dragons were attacking our left, as they did for most of the match.

And while I agree that when we were offside we were more than one step offside, that isn't the point if offside on the line is going to be judged with the enthusiam Bentham showed last night. Either a player is offside or onside, whether by one step or not is irrelevant if the letter of the law is going to be enforced. Therefore he has to watch both teams with equal scrutiny otherwise he is not in control of the game. He is instead becoming far too absorbed with making a point. That is poor refereeing and that is where Bentham found himself last night. Strangely enough - said in ironic tones - he did not ding the Dragons when they were offside on the line. And they were at times. He managed to create hostility by his actions and helped to undermine the game as a spectacle. Refereeing is also about managing a game, not just about enforcing the rules.

Offside is Offside. 6 inches or 3 yards makes no difference. Agreed that Saints were ridiculously offside during that short period, but don't kid yourself that every other team wouldn't try to get away with as much as possible as well.

If every offside were penalised, the game wouldn't be worth watching.

Also penalising a man for offside who ultimately isn't involved in play is churlish at the least. Correct by the letter of the law, but still churlish.

Trouble with Sts is that they have always been a niggling wind up kind of team. Permanently offside, always a hand on the ball in the tackle and taking dissent to levels not seen even in football.
The fact is that they provoke violence by their underhanded and deceitful trickery. It's not very nice to watch and certainly not worthy of such a honest game as RL. Makes you wonder with their chairmans background in finance, how much of this he has brought to the ethos of a club once known as "The Entertainers" (self proclaimed by the way).
Cheating is cheating and none do it better than our friends over the lump.