1) there are already two threads about ferres 2) it's a shocking tackle and he deserves everything he gets, what's there to discuss? the very nature of 50/50 decisions means there'll be debate about them

what about the saints players being offside when charging down the drop goal attempts... should of been a penalty to us!

Even if it had gone to the VR , Ganson would have tracked the wrong ball

Brough had enough chances to get that winning drop goal and failed.

The TV evidence is inconclusive for the dubious one,IMO.

Anyway, Ferres stupidity was more to blame for the defeat than Bentham. Huddersfield were well in control at that point.

Zero sympathy.

I fully accept the Red Card for Ferres and I'll support any ban he gets as long as there's consistancy with future bans.

I can't accept Bentham not going to the Video Ref. It's complete irrelevent if the VR would have awarded it. He went to the VR for pretty much everything else so not to go for the closest and most important decision of the game is a farce.

What I also can't accept is, even putting aside those 2 decisions, is that Bentham had a huge influence on the game. Jerry penalised for holding down when Bentham wasn't going to give anything until Walsh shoves Jerry in the chest. Wardle gets penalised for holding down when he can't get up as his shirts being pulled. I could go on and on. They both came in a period when Saints were awarded 4 or 5 penalties in a row in about 5 minutes. The game changing 5 minutes.

I am just truly sick to death of talking about referees at the end of games. The level of officiating is ruining the game - I know several people who don't bother with the sport as they can't stand such a high level of games having their outcome decided by poor decision-making. There's no consistancy. Some games don't appear to have offside or holding down in the rule book where as others have the game ruined through too many penalties being given incorrectly for both offences. Sometimes the interpretation changes mid way through the game. The game will never expand while we allow the poor level of officiating to ruin games let alone games that are on national TV - one the few times we actually get to showcase the game.

Rant over.

Why? From the view he had he thought it hadn't gone over, he wasn't wrong.

Consistency. Bentham and other refs use the VR all the time when there's even the merest hint of doubt. Giants players were sure it had gone over. That creates doubt. You see it all the time, players asking the ref to go to the VR when the ref is about to award a try and instead refers it. He showed that with several other referrals in the game.

what goes around comes around,i think they call it karma.

Why would the Hudds players thinking it's gone over put doubt in his mind? Maybe the reason he didn't refer it was because he was in no doubt?
I watched it live, thought it had gone over from the view behind the sticks, saw the front on shot (closest to Benthams view) and it clearly never went over.

I hope the linesman gets called up for allowing your second try to stand. Pass was a bit forward, don't you think?

Because the view from in front of the sticks has a foreshortening effect. Therefore you can only go off the one closest to the action and where the ball is coming toward the camera; i.e. he one behind the sticks which clearly shows it as good. Take your Saints specs off. Huddersfield were robbed. Even the likes of Walsh, Murphy and Brown could see that!

If the forward pass had been given for your second try you wouldn't have even been in that position. Mile forward that was.

Still, whatever eases the blow, eh.

Brown hasn't said anything of the sort. He said he didn't see it. Walsh said he thought it went over but then so do many of the fans. Another section of the fans thought it didn't go over and yet another section of the fans (me included) couldn't tell one way or the other either while at the match or on subsequent TV replays.

Can you explain why you keep insisting Bentham had the best view? There were 26 players on that very same field and they all seemed to think it was over! In fact Walsh and Brough both said so in the aftermatch interview but you could also tell from the reaction of the players. Of the 27 people on that pitch, it seems to me, only one thought it missed. How come you consider his to be the definitive view? It wouldn't be because it fits your agenda would it?

Brough had turned away before the ball had finished its journey so I honestly don't know how he could have known whether it went over or not.

And Anderson said he didn't see it either but that didn't stop him from ripping the TV off the wall in the press room!