What do you mean? How was there a turnover then if you went off and scored without being tackled? Have I got the wrong incident in mind?

As a neutral I must admit I thought that one was correct. There was no element at all of the defender taking the wrong man, the runner cam through at him. The attack only ever gets the benefit of the doubt when the defender has slightly changed direction and gone for the wrong man.

I think he's implying that we wouldn't have got to the 6th tackle before we scored.

The one where saints charged down and the ball went to lockers and he was going to run and give it to the wing to score. They ref stopped play and gave saints the ball.

That doesn't make sense, what did the ref blow up for if the tackle wasn't complete? It is play on at that point. I think you are talking about something different mate. Even the OP says a repeat set.

I must be talking about a different decision.

We're talking about the one where Sam kicked it, Roby charged it down then Finch (I think) fell on the loose ball, only to be called the 6th tackle.

I just wish the refs were more consistent with decisions like that. My problem at the time was that imilar situations to the Roby incident have been given as charge downs all season yet that one wasn't.

I think you're on about the one in the 2nd half when Finch's kick was charged down and Lockers caught it

Isn't that play on? I can't make up my mind on this one.

It did go both ways though some of Silverwood and Child's decision were incredible.



I think he gave obstruction against Graham for standing still after he had played the ball to Roby and the Richards penalty at the end was also baffling.



I do agree though, there were some complete clangers

(feel free to correct me on any names etc as i havent had time to watch it back yet)

Lockers was offside from the kick.