How did Saints get a Penalty from that?

Gilmour pulls Smiths hair in the tackle, Smith re-acts, Gilmour swings about five punches most of them hitting the back of another Saints player. Saints get the penalty.

Discuss?

Because Lee Smith lashed out in the tackle, and that was what attracted the attention of the touch judges and referee.

That they managed to miss the original offence isn't a surprise unfortunately, and it set the tone for the rest of the game. That and Bentham cr*pping out of binning Cunningham for a grapple immediately after he put both teams on a warning.

Would hardly call it a fight - Smith just getting back up to his feet as a barrage of punches come his way.

Touch judge seemed to call it - rubbish decision.

But never mind... it happens.

has been happening all cunningham's career

Leeds clearly lost the game because of that decision. I am disgusted that Bentham did not send off at least 5 saints players.

It's a fair point, the commentators suggestion that because smith pushed Gilmour in the face was deemed the original offence and therefore concede the penalty is bollards, does this now mean that if you are offended against you can then proceed to kick seven shades out of your opponent, safe in the knowledge that ultmately you will still get the penalty awarded to your team?

Was a very poor decision IMO, I bet Mary wished it had gone the other way too

It's not the commentators' suggestion – that was the touchy's report to the ref: first offence – Smith striking out at Gilmour in the tackle.

Shut up you imbecile!!

Not one person has said that is the reason Leeds lost. Leeds because Saints were better on the night!!!

That should be edited to first offence seen / acknowledged by officials.

First offence was clearly Gilmour, hence discussion.

when I was a lad I was taught that the person who retaliated gets penalised. Therefore, Saints penalty was the correct decision.