Im not biased, im Wire, but i defo thought Briscoe got his hand under there.

He did.

Unfortunately for him the ball had already touched the whitewash a second earlier.

If so, i got it wrong.

very hard to see it. at first i thought no try, but after looking at it again and again, it was inconclusive = benefit of the doubt to attacking team

For the vast majority of the match our discipline was shocking and if the players don't get this sorted fast then they will continually make things very hard for themselves.

Had we had 50% of the ball we'd have won the game comfortably but it seemed a rare occurrence we could defend a set of 6 without giving away a penalty. All this after some great attacking play in the first-half - muppets...

Does anyone else have a problem with this benefit of the doubt rubbish ! Who's idea was this stupid rule. Its either a try or it isn't. If you can't see the try being scored then it's no try. Only in rugby league could this be deemed a good rule.

Unfortunately for you tonight Fox got in the way of the angle that would have given the clearest picture.

if he wasnt there i think it would have been turned down

Your right in what you say but why should the attacking team receive preference in this situation. Should not the defence be rewarded. Again I say, if you cannot see the try being scored how can you award it.

what on earth got into Webster mouthing off like that to the ref. Fantastic 40-20 then he does that, game over.

Frustration.