What a joke. How can the RFL let him video ref Saints? Thats 2 tries Saints have had that shouldn't have been given.

Incredibly obvious bias in that last decision. One of the worst VR tries ever.

Justice has been done with Boyle's try at least. If Saints had got 1 or 2 points because of that decision, there would have been a riot.

There is just no reason why Ganson has to Ref this game and make a joke of our sport.

mistress Ganson is loved so much down sarf He has His own song.

The Moore try decision was a shocker, but you have to feel he was feeling guilty about the Eastmond no try decision. He has given that for obstruction, yet the dummy runner hit a gap and it was the choice of the defender to tackle him. They also didn't cross each other in any way.

Despite some quality off the cuff stuff from Salford, that has got to be the worst advert for Super League ever, comically poor defending from both sides.

But when the defender adjusted, he did get his hands on Eastmond but couldn't effect the tackle due to being impeded by the option runner.

Thought the tense last 20 minutes or so made for a good spectacle to be honest.

The Scott Moore try shows everything that's wrong with the video ref. For me the fault lies with the on-field ref. They think that with the crutch of the video ref they don't need to get in good positions. We also have the ridiculous situation in Super League where, once the try has been referred to the video ref, he HAS to make a decision. In the NRL the Moore try would have been a Ref's Call; putting the onus on the ref to be in the right place and have an opinion that he is just checking with the video ref.
Once referred, we didn't see the try NOT touch the floor and so Benefit of the Doubt Try was the right and only decision Ganson could make.
For me let's get rid of the video ref, have two refs on the field, and coach them to be in the right position!!

To be fair (and it's not often I'll say that about Ganson), as a Salford fan at the ground (so not hearing what the commentators were saying, or having the benefit of a really clear view of the replays), I expected a benefit of the doubt try from what I saw.



To the RL purist maybe, but I got a text at the end from a colleague who had watched on TV and thought it was an amazing game.

Isnt he from st helens

I did my nut at that decision. There's clearly a leg underneath the ball, which then immediately pops out at the top of the tackle, secured by the defenders. There was no way in hell it could have hit the floor. It's ridiculous that a self-proclaimed Saints fan officiates Saints matches, and always has been.


Disagree hugely. As a neutral (with a soft spot for Salford and obviously some {lots} of bias against Saints), I enjoyed it thoroughly. So what if the defences weren't on top - sometimes it's good to see lots of tries and see who can come out on top. Plenty of good attacking, some nice tackle busts, offloads, free running - all in all a good game.

No consistency as usual, saw the try on SSN and it was less of a try then Rob Burrow vs Wigan which was disallowed!

i agree with that for me it looked no try! but as the rule states that if u cant tell or see thats where the benefit of the doubt came in. Soon as i saw it refered to the video ref theres only one result, the correct call!

There becomes a point where there's so much doubt you can't really give benefit. For me there was no way that ball could have hit the floor so I fail to see how benefit of the doubt was applied. Maybe it's my nice picture but there was a leg underneath it and from there the ball went upwards.

All in all a cracking game