Roby was square, it was makinson who wasn't. However makinson had no involvement in the play. There are plenty of incidents for both sides of ifs buts and maybes but it wasn't a deciding factor for the game.

For example, after watching it several times, I still don't know who was offside for the penalty to take it to 8-6. Or is this another week of my team lost to saints because of the ref?

Well it appeared that they are blessed at the moment, doesn't it. The sky team where ing for a saints win. It seems pre ordained that saints are to win super league this year or at least top the table.

Mate, it wasn't the ref that lost you that game. To go on about it takes away on what should of been a great spectacle.

Yes I agree the sky team were cringeworthy, but then, when aren't they?

Leeds never really had saints on the ropes. Leeds had nothing in attack apart from a few drop outs and saints dealt with it comfortably.

OP I thought you were leaving the forum.

glad saints won in the end even as a Wigan supporter as Leeds looked ordinary in attack and played pretty negatively.

Leeds played a conservative percentage game. They looked at the lineup and particularly Saints pack and bench. They concluded Saints would fade and all they had to do was complete their sets and grind it out against the Saints kids. 9 times out of 10 it would have worked but Saints were outstanding in defense.

At the hour mark Leeds should have started throwing it about a bit, Saints were blowing but Leeds didn't stick the knife in.

You left in ignominy. What HAPPENED?

And why are you watching SOOOOPER DOOOPER LEAGUE anyway?

Saints B team takes on the Leeds A team and win




But of course it was the ref that turned the game, so how many penalties and decisions went Leeds way???????

That's not exactly true mate. Yes Saints performed admirably, and were missing many players. But despite what the Sky commentators tell you, Leeds were missing three themselves, lost another in build up to kick off, and lost another 20 mins into match. So to say Leeds were full strength is an Inaccuracy.

Saints should have been penalised much more than they were, but at the same time Leeds should have been pulled on a fair few occasions for forward passes at the play the ball.

Saints played with 13 past and present academy players last night, Leeds still had 10 international players on show, idid Leeds underestimate a greatly depleted pack.

That's quite a bit of spin. Leeds also played with 12. I am sure one day a fair few of those Saints lads will be internationals.

I wasn't looking for excuses, I was only pointing out a fact. The sky commentators did not paint the correct picture last night.

I think that naturally the leeds side probably did expect to totally dominate a depleted pack.walmesley and amor have been far and away the dominant pair of front rowers in the league and with them missing it looked a mismatch.full credit to the lads that filled in though,saverlio(?) looked a handful and a top prospect and I thought Flanagan got through a ton of work for you.

that said,our halves were a fair bit clueless in your 20 and very predictable.not to take anything away from saints defence which was excellent.I think you have confirmed yourselves as favorites for the title this year.

It wasn't a knock on according to Cummings because hitting his leg negates it. He was 100% sure too. So getting the super zoom out was a massive waste of time and according to him they got it badly wrong.

Definitely agreed with the last part. Ref waved play on and too much happens after that incident. According to some football journos it's why they don't want it in their sport.

Give over. It was a knock on. Every fan of every club on here was that involving their side would call it a knock on. Always has been a knock on so not sure where Cummings came up with this rule amendment.

The other point is probably correct though.

Cummings pandering to the frothing at the mouth sky team who were willing every video decision to go for saints,it was embarrassing.

Seems an odd thing to say if it wasn't the case tho? It just shows how frustrating it is that even refs and ex head of refs are going off two different set of rule books.

Morally it was a knock on all day long.

My understanding (and I can't be arrsed looking it up, but a long time ago I seem to remember doing so) is that this all relates to the kick.

If I am running with the ball then I can drop the ball in a forward motion but if I kick it before it touches the ground, that is legal and it is play on.

But if I just fumble it, and it goes to ground, it is a knock on, and it makes no difference whether it accidentally makes an incidental contact that I didn't intend with my leg on the way down.

If you look up the definitions, I think you will find that the exemption is if a player "KICKS" the ball, which means what it says on the tin. It means a conscious and successful decision to propel the ball somewhere with your leg.

On any natural meaning, or common sense, or anything else, there was never in a million years any "kick" here, the ball by fluke bounced lightly off the leg and the player knew nothing of it and intended none of it. So the accidental contact with the leg does not negate the obvious knock on.

If he'd dropped it, but then seeing it was falling to ground, deliberately had a go at it with his leg, then it would be OK. Because that would count as a "kick".

____________________________
EDIT
Oh, go on then. Just for you:

Accidental Knock on:
If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player
knocking-on .... kicks the ball before it
touches the ground,... then play shall be allowed to proceed.

Definitions:
KICK means imparting motion to the ball with any part of the
leg (except the heel) from knee to toe inclusive.

Look again; Laffranchi was half a meter offside. HTH

Did not watch it on SKY have no idea what the commentators where saying.

So makes little difference to my interpretation.

In one set of six we had a player tackled in the air. a flop, something else that escapes me now. But we got zip. We where hardly favoured by the ref last night.

As for the none - knock on. It just looked like they were trying to find any reason not to send a player from the feild. Tackling the man without the ball in the act off scoring. Is that not a sending off???

Pretty much my assessment of it.

I thought Leeds' stronger bench would show in the end (although why we had BJB as an unused sub is anyone's guess) and that St Helens would struggle with 80 minutes of pressure.

Credit to St Helens, they defended superbly and came up with some big plays at the end.

I don't understand Leaguefan's criticism of Leeds for kicking the two penalty goals. In those circumstances, I'd suggest any team would have taken the two points on offer.

Spot on Leeds have lost that killer touch.
As for the non playing of BJB, effectively playing with a 2 man bench in the second forty was bound to take its toll.
Maybe Brian Mc was attempting to battle harden the troops. If that’s the case, I think he was wrong, it’s a 17 man game these days.
Credit to Saints for finding a way at the end.

It's not directly relevant, but it's worth remembering the Danny McGuire try at Wigan in July 2011 which was disallowed after he knocked on, it bounced then he kicked it - i.e. it became effectively a drop kick. Incorrectly denying that in the last minute cost Leeds the game and generated one of Cummings' Monday morning phone calls of apology to the head coach.

On the topic of the video ref though, I find it stunning that Silverwood was able to give that last try without checking the onside at the kick through.

It was a knock on by Clarkson before Walker knocked on. He knocks the ball out of Roby's hand, clear attempt at the ball aswell. Should of been scrum feed St Helens, rather than turn over.

Don't think so.I think you'll find that Clarkson knocks Roby's wrist rather than knocks the ball on.