I was sat more or less in line with the refs position but higher up. My first call was that the ball wasn't grounded so wasn't surprised at the on field decision, don't see how the ref can be criticised. I obviously didn't see any at the other end so can't offer an opinion.

I do think Saints were allowed to disrupt our game illegally by holding down at the play the ball and flopping.

And what was Walmesley doing that earned the penalty before half time if not cheating?

Quote Barbed Wire="Barbed Wire"The problem is that there are 2 sets of rules, one is the RFL rule book and one is common sense. We could all see that Lineham didn't have control when grounding the ball, so common sense = no try. But the roles require pressure from the torso, therefore it was the right decision. Same with the Peyroux one. Because the RFL requires a guess from the ref, it is the right decision. If that goes up as a try, it would have been awarded. Thaler did what he could, took a guess and followed the rule book. He got them both as right as he could given the rules he has to apply, the problem is the rules are so ridiculous, his hands are tied.'" www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... /?ref=fbpg .... I would say that its his hand in contact with the ball, not just his torso. Common sense would say from this image .... try, everyday of the week

Quote Barbed Wire="Barbed Wire"The problem is that there are 2 sets of rules, one is the RFL rule book and one is common sense. We could all see that Lineham didn't have control when grounding the ball, so common sense = no try. But the roles require pressure from the torso, therefore it was the right decision. Same with the Peyroux one. Because the RFL requires a guess from the ref, it is the right decision. If that goes up as a try, it would have been awarded. Thaler did what he could, took a guess and followed the rule book. He got them both as right as he could given the rules he has to apply, the problem is the rules are so ridiculous, his hands are tied.'" www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... /?ref=fbpg .... I would say that its his hand in contact with the ball, not just his torso. Common sense would say from this image .... try, everyday of the week

I take your point, however still images can be deceiving, if you look a couple of frames earlier (Sky Sports app has the highlights if you wish to have a look) you'll see Swift dislodge the ball, and Lineham doesn't really regather. His hand may be on the ball, which is sufficient in the rules, but it doesn't really constitute control of the ball.

One on one, Swift was well within his rights to attack the ball, problem for Swift was he couldn't knock it over the touch/dead ball line, he knocked it over the goal line and Lineham belly flopped on it, try.

Again with the "Eddie hates Warrington" talk



Not one person has mentioned that in the post match talk between him, Stevo, and Clarke, he said that Warrington have played the best rugby over the past 6 months and are the most deserving team to be in the grand final.



Anyway, I think the two controversial tries went the right way as far as the rules go, but for me the one I think we really got away with was our first try.

I was convinced it wouldn't be given once it went to the video ref, and even though he was checking for obstruction, he also checked the grounding and maybe it's just my eyes, but Gidley initially touches the ball down short of the goal line and then he and the ball bounce back up from the turf and momentum take him beyond the line but by then the Saints player had got underneath the ball and the ball never touched the turf again.

So for me I think we were lucky with our first try as I don't think the ball ever touches the turf on or beyond the line.



The two controversial tries, whilst I understand the controversy were correct in my mind.

Even if they go up to the video ref for Linehams try, they would have given a try on the field and there was no conclusive evidence that after the ball came loose that it ever touches the ground without either Linehams hand or torso in contact.



Saints try was unlucky for them, because if the ref gives try on the field it would have stood because there just wasn't evidence either way.

You can clearly see that the ball is just above the line and can only conclude that it would have touched it, but you never actually see, so you don't know if a Wire player got their hand under it or if somehow it doesn't touch.

In that scenario, the only option is for the call on the field to stand.

Harsh, but right.



But yeah, I am still amazed that the grounding for the Gidley try wasn't examined further.

Quote Barbed Wire="Barbed Wire"I take your point, however still images can be deceiving, if you look a couple of frames earlier (Sky Sports app has the highlights if you wish to have a look) you'll see Swift dislodge the ball, and Lineham doesn't really regather. His hand may be on the ball, which is sufficient in the rules, but it doesn't really constitute control of the ball.'" This "control of the ball" is another Stevoism when he invents the rules, a bit like the non existent "momentum rule" (which is actually just a note in Section 10) A try is scored when:- (a) A player first grounds the ball in his opponents’ in- goal, provided that he is not in touch or touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line. Grounding the ball means (a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands or (b) Exerting downward pressure on the ball with hand or arm, the ball itself being on the ground or (c) Dropping on the ball and covering it with the part of the body above the waist and below the neck, the ball itself being on the ground. It wasn't a knock on either as the ball did not hit the ground without him holding it or an opposition player. Ergo : A try. rflmedia.therfl.co.uk/docs/RFL%2 ... 202013.pdf

Quote Barbed Wire="Barbed Wire"I take your point, however still images can be deceiving, if you look a couple of frames earlier (Sky Sports app has the highlights if you wish to have a look) you'll see Swift dislodge the ball, and Lineham doesn't really regather. His hand may be on the ball, which is sufficient in the rules, but it doesn't really constitute control of the ball.'" This "control of the ball" is another Stevoism when he invents the rules, a bit like the non existent "momentum rule" (which is actually just a note in Section 10) A try is scored when:- (a) A player first grounds the ball in his opponents’ in- goal, provided that he is not in touch or touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line. Grounding the ball means (a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands or (b) Exerting downward pressure on the ball with hand or arm, the ball itself being on the ground or (c) Dropping on the ball and covering it with the part of the body above the waist and below the neck, the ball itself being on the ground. It wasn't a knock on either as the ball did not hit the ground without him holding it or an opposition player. Ergo : A try. rflmedia.therfl.co.uk/docs/RFL%2 ... 202013.pdf

He went down like he'd been shot. He also has a habit of going way off the mark at the ptb. Any number of Wilkin's tackles were third or fourth man in flops, and some of the offsides in their own 10 metre area were obvious.

I started laughing when hemmings was trying to turn back time by saying 'it's wide to percival,it's wide to percival, in the style of his wide to west commentary.what a tool.

Stevo's views on ball control were obvious when he was campaigning for the Myler non try to be allowed at Catalans a few weeks ago. Not to mention the other try where the ball carrying arm of le frog had been planted firmly on the turf.

I don't normally go on other club's fan sites, but after another night's insomnia, I decided to dip my toe into the weird world of the entertainers.



WOW. Just wow. Our "Merseyside Friends" really do have their collective knickers in a twist. I doubt even a visit from Kofi Anan and a party from ACAS with an up to date copy of the RL rule book would calm their sense of injustice.

...and as for the glorified "love in" from fans of Leeds, Hull, Hudds and Wigan, yes, that's Wigan, on there......oh my word. It's like an entry on Facebook, when some needy lover posts that they've lost their pet goldfish, and there's a tsunami of sympathy "FEELING YOUR LOSS, HUNNI" and a thousand likes.



Only after a few views of the Lineham incident, did the Sky Muppets decide that their blood pressure would go into hyperspace. Had it gone to a VR decision, the try would have stood, as there was NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that the try should have been disallowed.

Likewise, the reversal of the Peyreaux (sp) incident. There was NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that the ball actually touched the ground. Had that incident happened last year, the try would have been allocated. As the RFL changed the interpretation for this season, the VR had no option. The try HAD to be refused.



It seems these Scouse Wannabes have a real complex. Maybe we should light a candle for them.



The two controversial events in Thursday's game were adjudged correctly.

The sense of harddonetoness is palpable in WA12. It's almost like the last few seconds of the 2002 GF never happened

This is correct. Close imagery also shows TL hand was still holding the ball.

So if Warrington had lost in these circumstances you'd all have accepted it as a fair and just result? Yeah right. Saints fans are hacked off (as you lit would be) and showing it.



I take it all those complaining about Walmsley's "dive" are similarly upset about Clark trying to get a penalty every time he's tackled. W Warrington players move off the mark, hold down in the tackle and flop as much as any other team if you look with both eyes open. And have you forgotten Westwood's embarrassing dive when Maurie touched him?