He took Cook smack around the head and the second tackler also went to the headsaints were as guilty as any team can be about going to the head, they also use the grapple regularly, which they seem to get away with. I don't have a problem with players copping a sin-bin for offences, but I wish that referees would just look both ways in games at times.

I also think that Thalers decision for the last try was clearly wrong (not that it mattered in the great scheme), they had three players in front of the kicker (by at least 2 metres) and tow of those tackled a Rovers player without the mandatory 10 metres, unless I have got it wrong, a bounce does not continue play and make them onside, the first Rovers player to touch the ball was Dobson and he had two of the offside players all over him by then. Even the Sky commentators were dumbfounded by it as was all the Humberside panelists.

My concern is that it went to Thaler in the first place.

Saints didn't indulge in head shots all night or grapple tackles. I only saw one high shot from Cunningham and KR were given a penalty as a result. If he did commit more than one then I would agree, he should have been binned. Cunningham was one of our poorer players last night. When he has a blinder he stands out; when he is poor he stands out. He's a big guy, in more ways than one, and so stands out no matter how he plays.


As explained by the Sky guys last night - who analysed that try to the nth degree (I watched the match back after returning from the ground) - first of all, the players involved in the play have to have both feet infront of the kicker when the ball is kicked to be judged offside. Secondly, those players have to be involved in the subsequent play. If both those criteria are fulfilled then the play is deemed offside and the try should not have been given. The argument revolved around whether the far wing players of Flannery and Foster had both their feet in front of the kicker when the ball was kicked. Presumably Thaler decided they did not. However, even if he had decided that they did, he then had to look at whether those same players were involved with the ball when it came down. Neither was. Neither Flannery nor Foster touched that ball when it reached ground and the tv footage showed that quite clearly. Dixon, who scored the try, was not one of the players to the kicker's left when the kick was made, so he was never going to be included in the judgement. He didn't knock on either. He simply gathered the ball under him, cleanly, was told to play on, which he did, and scored.

The decision hung on whether Flannery and Foster had both feet in front of the kicker when he kicked. Thaler thought not. The Sky guys thought he did but then on closer examination Phil Clark thought not, Eddie thought they did. It was one of those 50/50s that went our way, which was a sickener for you guys.

I didn't think that was a 50/50. Still, even 20/80s go against you one in five (without adjustment for what is known in East Hull Mathematics as the Thaler constant!).
The week before we got away with some forward passes in the build up to tries, so it's swings and roundabouts in some respects. Neither those nor that decision last night were in the least crucial in deciding the outcome. Much as it rubbed salt in wounds, I'd rather it happened then than in a close game.
We had the Watts try at Cas, which might not have been given on another day, or against some other teams (by which I mean unconcscious bias) that won that game.
Childs, who I thought was very fair when our opponents were unfashionable Wakefield (another game we ultimately lost abjectly), seemed slightly in awe of Saints. You get that with Saints and Leeds (or any successful team of any era, I'm sure), but maybe Childs inexperience exaccerbated it a bit.

[quote="SaintsFan"]Saints didn't indulge in head shots all night or grapple tackles. I only saw one high shot from Cunningham and KR were given a penalty as a result. If he did commit more than one then I would agree, he should have been binned. Cunningham was one of our poorer players last night. When he has a blinder he stands out; when he is poor he stands out. He's a big guy, in more ways than one, and so stands out no matter how he plays.


I saw a good few grapple tackles from Saints last night, all sides do them, sometimes you cant help it some you can but all teams do them, YES even Saints ( just not according to Ref Childs that is )

You have to have both your feet behind the BALL to be onside, either that or the kicker has to run you onside. If you have one foot or both in front of the ball as it is kicked you are offside. Foster was actually onside, Flannery wasn't though.

My bad. Either way, neither were involved in touching the ball when it came down and whether Flannery was or wasn't onside - and I couldn't tell from the camera angle (hence my claim to a 50/50 call) - wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't involved in the subsequent action. Which he wasn't.

Foster is the player on the wing, Flannery is stood 3 metres in front of the kicker. Flannery is involved in the next action as he then proceeds to move forward and is actually involved in going for the ball, knocking Briscoe out of the way in the process. A player who is offside must not encroach within ten metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball (which he clearly does in order to be involved going for the ball) and he must must not infuence the game in any way.

Are you really suggesting that your red line represents a straight line across the pitch?

It starts off about 4 metres from the 1/2 way line and looks like it will end up about 8 metres away

does anyone like me think rovers went for revenge but it did not come off so they started to try to stop by any means they could i hope not but it could answer a reason for the indiscipline

No.Not even in my wildest dreams would we put a cricket score on Saints.