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.

Seem to have gone off Subject a bit.

I don't agree with a protest. It's life. We deal with it and we move on.

I will be there Thursday and putting all my efforts into supporting my team.

Nothing personal against those who want to do it and I'm sure you want to for the right reasons but I think it's a ridiculous idea and putting it on a plate for the pi$s takers.

just make your feels known next time bentham refs one of our games...

cant see it being for a while though and certainly not at home...

sunday will not be forgotten though mr bentham

No, only if the fourth one also misses, which it did. The point was (which I suspect, or at least hope you know) is that Huddersfield had ample chances to win the match, including an earlier kickable penalty which they failed to take.

Winning big matches and tight games is about taking your chances, Saints did, Huddersfield didn't.

Reguardless if it did or did not go over ( but we all know it did) Bentham should have gone to the video ref like he did on earlier occasions . I wasn't bothered who won either way but as a rugby league fan I felt cheated yet again . Something needs to be done about the standard of the officials but I won't hold my breath .
Safe journey on Thursday guys and let's hope for a great game of rugby league

Well, who would have thought your protest would be not actually attending the game. Brilliant.