As well as watching Giants I have also been to a number of Crusaders and Scorpions games this season and yes I'd say there are good referees lower down the scale and have seen none of the controversy or poor calls in the lower level games and that includes a sending off in the Crusaders v Barrow game.

A hudds fan having a pop about attendances

Haha this is priceless. There were more away fans than home ones yesterday and you have a pop at us.

i can not believe this thread watch the drop goal from behind brough as if u was looking from the away end it NEVER went over in a million years 100 percent the correct decision

Look at it from the opposite end i.e head on and its a drop goal

Think you should change your name to Stevie Wonder

Or Phil Bentham

It was over. You should go to Spec Savers.

One camera over the other not, you can't pick the camera that suits your argument the best, ref also says not over, job done. Even if he had gone to the video ref it's inconclusive so ref original call would stand.
You still go out to the single Walsh drop goal attempt.

No point, the Ref's are untouchable and a handful of disgruntled fartown fans wont change anything - how many cock-ups has Ganson made over the years and every year he gets another crack in the limelight.
Nice try guys but i feel you would be wasting your time and effort - put it into backing the lads on the field, complain by Email or letters to the RFL if you need to, thats probably a better bet.

Pass from Grix was a mile forward for your second try.

Perhaps a protest should do the job.

I have said nothing about the drop on the Huddersfield page as it's still really bitter, and I can fully understand why.

I was in the away end I promise I thought it was wide, I said to the guy next to me that it was so close that we would not be able to say to much it the ref gave it, I wouldn't put my house on it but it was no goal

Ref used the Video Ref a number of times off side from the kick, number of bodies in the way over the line, that stuff that would have been difficult to be 100% about! he then makes a call which he is sure about and is panned for the making the call. Yes a number of people included a number who have made their name in a red v but without the right angle it's impossible to call it was that close. There are two replays of the attempted drop goal one is goal, the other no goal. What call would he have made if handed upstairs? Advantage attack, on field refs call or asked his opinion if it went straight upstairs??

There are not enough refs in the sport ATM and even less that most fans could agree on as being good good enough and so the rfl need to put some real plan in place to sort this one way or another, and I think it's fair to say the answer is not Jon sharp

I hope this planned protest is not because you feel you had a couple of bad calls against you yesterday, because yes you were the better team, much improved from the last few weeks and getting back on track. But if brough was stood further back, took the kick as first receiver or just hit it better and won the game would you still be talking about a mass protest??

did you not notice the

at the end? it was a tongue in cheek comment because your away support hasn't been that good since you stopped winning things


was a very good turnout for saints,very vocal but 1,900 is not more in a total of 5,599 nice try though.

Don't see what you've got to protest about. Saints scored more points than you and ultimately won the game. The disallowed drop goal looked over from a camera behind the sticks, it looked like it missed from a camera in front of the sticks, and it looked like it missed from where Bentham was standing. As a neutral I'd say Bentham made the right call, he was stood in line with brough and ten yards from the goalposts. The only man to blame for your loss was brain donor Ferres.

and he chose to ignore a voluntary tackle right at the end, which according to the laws is a penalty, had he applied the laws to saints as he did to us we would have had a penalty under the sticks to win the game, but thats forgotten about because of the DG farce.
ferres' actions were indeed very costly but to say he cost us the game is wrong, his actions didn't help us, but the actions of the referee helped saints more than ferres' red card did.

What's the point? The refs are untouchable, if assault, drunken behaviour and involvement in a racist incident isn't enough to sack them then incompetence ain't going to cut it.

He cost us the game end of, if we had won it would have been inspite of him and as we did not he has to take more than his fair share of responsibility and he let everyone down badly.

he didn't cost us the game at all, it didn't help but it didn't cost us the game.

So, the ref goes to the big screento check whether a try has been scored. 6 camera angles do not show anything positive. the 7th shows that a try has been scored. Your argument would show the words "NO TRY" on the screen.

If one camera angle showed him grounding the ball blatantly and the other angle showed him dropping the ball and they completely contradicted each other the award would be no try, but this is different the concept isn't the same even though there are the 2 choices of over and not over, the doubt is bigger and the strength of the replay is weaker.
The video ref has to say he doesn't know either way and has to assume that the guy on the ground has the best view so refers it back.

Bentham originally thought is no drop goal so that is the decision.

Have you ever seen a penalty given for a voluntary tackle? Even if it was, it would be one of those rules where common sense applies and play resumes, like when you here referees telling players not to interfere in the next tackle as a warning because they did it on the previous tackle.

As for the drop goal, on one angle it looks over on another it looks wide. I'd like to see it from the variety of different angles the BBC had available, such as one of the one from the opposite corner, that could have shed some light onto it. It was a 50/50 call that went against Huddersfield. I do understand why they are so aggrieved, because Saints fans would have just as much right to be angry if it was given the other way.

But teams have calls given against them. We had a possible penalty try disallowed last week, and a even more debatable try disallowed against Salford, and then of course there's the forward pass which wasn't spotted in the build up to Huddersfield's try on Sunday. These are 50/50 calls, it wasn't blatantly right or wrong from Bentham, it's just bad luck.

The statement from Thelwis and talk of protests from Huddersfield fans is ridiculous, particularly when no-one can be certain whether the decision in question was correct! I accept the anger, but the reaction has been over the top. Maybe Huddersfield should look closer to home as to why they lost the match. Brough had FOUR drop goal attempts, Walsh had one. If Brough would have hit even one with the accuracy of Walsh, then this wouldn't even be debated. If Ferres hadn't have got himself sent off, Huddersfield's task would have been far easier and IMO they would have won. If Huddersfield wouldn't have turned down a kickable penalty (which they rarely do!), in a tight match of such importance, this wouldn't even be debated.

Huddersfield were unlucky, Saints got a huge slice of luck, but the allegations of bent refs, match fixing and protests are quite laughable.

#RLMeltdown

It's not a voluntary tackle unless hohaia (I assume this is what you're on about) plays the ball. Fact is, a player can sit on the floor and wait to be tackled all he likes (there are no rules against it) it's only if he had played the ball would it be a voluntary tackle. Since the hooter went and he never played the ball - there is no voluntary tackle.

Exactly. I really don't know why anyone is making a fuss. It's very clear in the rules that if a player makes three consecutive attempts at a drop goal and misses all three, then his fourth attempt is automatically ruled out.

You cannot score a drop goal if you've already missed three. It's there in the rules, in black and white. Go and look it up.

Play doesn't stop just because the guy with the ball chooses to sit down for a bit. When Hohaia sat down at the end, two things can happen. He sits there until he gets bored and stands up again and play goes on, or a Huddersfield player comes and touches him triggering a penalty for a voluntary tackle.

If the hooter blows you can't stop the game because a player sits down. The ball has to go out of play. The hooter isn't the end of the game.

Bentham stopped the game prematurely because he knew (and still knows now, regardless of what bull he's spouting while his colleagues close ranks) that he'd made a potentially career ending cock up and wanted to get off the field ASAP before he got lynched.