Doesn't really bother me whether it was a try or not because it's a matter of opinion but what did bother me was the constant offside tactics of saints which were ignored by the ref. in55 years of watching rugby league I have never seen a team more offside.

The decision wasn't correct as the incident happened in the field of play and not the in goal. The player was deemed to have continued to play despite being "held" correct decision would have been for burgess to be pulled back to play the ball.

Incorrect. It was a double movement. The player attempted to score a try after the tackle was complete. The "try" took place in the in-goal area. Check the rules mate, it's there in black and white.

I don't have any great complaints about it as it could have gone either way. If it would have been a Saints player we would have all said it was the correct decision.

The strange thing about how hard and fast a rule interpretation should actually be implemented is usually IMO dictated on which side of the theoretical fence your a*se happens to be on at the time.

It was an illegal movement by Burgess to gain advantage over the try line beyond the rules, hence the penalty. The ruling is not all that difficult to understand, thats why the officials made a quick correct decision.

I think we would have moaned about it but not to the amount of wishful opinion on here. In Wanes World of Wugby it was a try, his fans will clutch onto that for comfort.

Haha there's probably some truth in that mate. But if that was a Saints try that had been disallowed then I genuinely couldn't and wouldn't sit here and moan, simply because it was the right decision at the end of the day.

we lost, saints played better and wanted it more...end of

Watching it live, right in front of me, I'd have given no try. It looked like a blatant double-movement to me.