Absolutely correct, but absolutely wrong.

I know that the outcome given the currrent ruling was correct, but c'mon, it's not a try is it. The Saints player is offside, and that should be punished, so given that the RFL have tied the video refs hands behind his back, he's had to award a try knowing that there's been an infringement. That can't be right.

Surely this needs to be looked at, can't be right.

Obvious that Ganson was considering ruling it out ... makes you wonder if the Video Refs listen to the SKY team.

What was said?

Had Halibut called it offside then the try would have been ruled out. But because he didn't, it wasn't, as the ball had been played and the video ref can't use that in making his decision. Therefore, the decision was as right as any other.

Alibert asked Ganson to look at offside. Initially he looked at the PTB and then it looked like the big screen was being prepared for a decision. The suggestion being that since he hadn't wound it forward, it was going to be NO TRY.

The SKY pundits started to point out that Cummings has said that they can only go back as far as when the ball clears the ruck area and not the PTB itself.

Ganson then started looking at the play from when the ball cleared the ruck to the grounding and awarded a TRY.

Well that is a bit silly isn't it. That probably needs looking at.

What he said ...

I've no problem with the try given the constraints the VR has in place. I just think it can't be good for the game when a VR is forced to give a try when he knows that it shouldn't be given.

I concur.

as a neutral think it was a cracking game now if that had been a KR player talking to the ref like Graham did to Halibut he would ave been sent of, game could have gone either way and personally wanted wire to win, will be a cracking challenge cup final if these two get there then i think wire will win....

Undermines the whole system. Shame as the VR has been a good example to othe sports so far.

It will be hard to rule, some refs stand ten and want the players in line with them and blow if they aren't, some refs stand 11 and allow the players to stand in front knowing they are ten. Ganson being one that stands 11. The players know how each refs work. It will need a ruler to work it out on screen. On a second note, do players need both feet or just one to be in line? I know it used to be one, you would need a camera in line with each PTB to make a fair and true ruling.

In this instance, the Saints player (Wilkin) didn't even get back 8 yds, hence why Ganson took one look and the screen changed, only for him to remember/be told that he couldn't rule.

I think the VR is there to remove the obvious, if it's marginal, decisions would stand.

It was Mr Cummings that said live on sky that a VR could not rule on off side at the POTB. When Ganson started to do this i think he might just have had a phone call from his boss.

Its quite obvious to me they should have 2 or 3 designated video refs that only do that job and know what they can and what they cannot rule on

... or been listening to the SKY commentators.