Beats me as to what's happened to the enthusiasm that Saint's always used to have. It always seemed irrepressible to the point of frustration, for opposing fans.



The players they have certainly have the right skill sets. [iWhy [/idon't they have that "Saint's Team Spirit" / winning mentality, no matter who they're playing/how long there is left?



Whilst I know the Whino's defence restricted their play that wasn't the Saints of earlier this year/the past. In fairness it was the Saint'steam I've watched on SKY over the last few months.



Their get up and go seems to have got up and gone

I still can't get over how bad we were screwed by the officials in the 99 & 02 finals.



Withers never touched the ball & Peacock didn't knock on.

So to put things in perspective. Crap as we have been this season we've won as much as Saints.

Who? Pryce? Does he play for us? Oh. I thought he still played for you? Well, he may as well do. He hasn't been seen at Saints for months ... (Personally, I hope he becomes intimately familiar with those extremely comfortable benches at Knowsley Road next season with young Gary Wheeler taking his place)





When you have the answer to your question would you let us know, please? Personally, I can't see past Potter as being the problem but whenever I suggest that anywhere near Saints fans I generally get piloried. I just cannot see how a team that appeared to be fired up, happy as a team and at least with some attacking flair can turn into what we have seen develop over the last few months. From a Saints fan's perspective it is really sad, not so much the lack of silverware but rather to see our team spoiled in this way. Few fans are enjoying watching Saints at present. When Catalans played us at KR for our last match of the regular season I ended up watching them and cheering their efforts because we were so dire!

But as the rules don't specify the "back foot", why pick that?



Surely, the logical choice is the foot kicking the ball? If as the chaser you (iei your feet) are behind or level with the ball, it's fair enough?

Well it could do with clarifying, I've seen 40/20's given where the ball has crossed the 40 but the back foot is inside the 40. So I assumed the ref's judged it on the players back foot rather than where the ball is in the air as contact is made with the boot. Surely that ruling makes it almost impossible for a ref to make a call without slow motion replays?

Been there done that.





Most times things seems to have gone like that here, seems to be money issues behind it, directly or indirectly (and yes, I'm including first-half 2005).



Maybe its happening over your way now?

Good point.



Whilst not under the same part of the RFL rules, a sound, logical (IMHO) point.

You know what's done for Saints? The slowing down of the PTB. It no longer means they can charge up the pitch on Mr Potato Head or Roby's back anymore.



Wigan blame the salary cap, Saints blame the slow PTB.



Bradford blame everything else!

Player has to have both feet behind or level with the ball to be placed onside..the ball is the main object not the foot, he doesnt have to be level or behind kickers back foot otherwise he would be 2 foot behind the ball..ie clearly onside.

Agree on that, the fact that it is being debated, with nobody having a clear answer, is proof enough of that.







I'm not sure that I've seen that. But it is not inconsistent. In the case you cite, the BALL is outside the 40. So it has not been kicked from inside the 40. This would mean that the position of the ball, when struck by the kicking foot, is what fixes the relevant point on the pitch.



If that's right, then all the chaser had to be is feet not in front of the point where the ball was kicked by the kicking foot.



It would be consistent.

Simple. No more quick PTBs. The likes of Roby, Pryce, Long and Wilkin mostly look good running against a retreating defensive line. That's why they've been quiet all season. Last year Saints were dependent on quick PTBs, scoots from Cunningham and Roby and piggyback penalties. The loophole has been closed