Nobody contested that they'd both had calls for them. I'm specifically talking about potentially game winning scores being chalked off. In those circumstances the team has been robbed by such a decision. That's self evident.

Quite possible considering a lot of fans go into the players bar after the match for the post match stuff !

Tough call on Hudds and I say it was a good kick.
But Brett Ferris lost you that. It ought not to have been put on Bentham to decide.

so bentham was in correct position to make the call so he didn't need to use the video ref .he says in is interview . so why when he is in the correct position did he keep going to smith during the rest of the game , there was noway we where going to get a penalty for offside in the last 4 minutes Ganson would have run on and sacked him on the spot

This is not a report from Uncle Jeff's son's wife's hamster's owner. It came from a friend whose word I do not doubt.

And by the way, why did he come to and go away from the match on the Saints bus???

It's those who are saying that we were given everything that I don't understand. Thankfully we got the one that mattered.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't concern me. He's given his explanation and it's time to leave it at that. Had he gone to the screen the result would have been the same. Use it as motivation for next time you play us if it's still concerning you.

I think if he had gone to the screen the game woild have ended as a draw and we would have gone to golden point. I think we know we would not have been awarded Broughys drop goal but we would have had a minute or so to compose and get set up to stop you getting close enough to have a shot at goal.

He didn't.

What is wrong with you people. Is your bitter hatred so bad that you will make stuff up to suit your argument.

henderson on the super league show said walmsley lost the ball... so a knock on but we know what happened to level the scores

Well if Henderson said it it must be true!?

The walmsley penalty was as soft as the savelio penalty that led to Leeds first try against us last week. For me, both were soft and not really worth calling up - but they were.

If we really want to argue about reffing decisions, I'd suggest there was far more evidence to suggest makinson scored vs Salford (that was ruled out) than there was for lunts first try (that was given)

Lunts first try wasn't given it was disallowed for a non existent knock on!! sorry but lets get the facts right, you must of missed that one

you're correct he didnt - he was seen as he arrived. He was in his car which he then parked in the odeon carpark (naughty). He then got someone else to collect and drive his car away later..... wonder why??

No, the first no try, where Lunt knocks on trying to put the ball down on lomax's leg was a correct decision. As soon as the ball hit lomaxs leg, it was a knock on (There are even wiganers on the saints board admitting it was the correct decision, usually we say black they say white!)

The Lunt try, which was given on the evidence of a saints hand being on the ball (which smith mistook for lunts left arm - from the far right corner, funny how no ones complaining that that camera angle was 120m away) seemed less conclusive than the saints "no try" vs Salford for makinson (an example I use given both were looking at the grounding) - since everyone (well not everyone, the more hyperbolic) on here is calling for consistency, where's the consistency in that?

I assure you, I've watched the game plenty! You now just seem to be complaining about every single decision that didn't go huddersfields way, regardless of whether it was the correct call or not.