Dave T

If there is so much interest in the game, wouldn't this transfer into Sky viewing figures? I am not talking about Internationals, I have no issue with extensive coverage of that, but when Aviva Premiership gets this extensive coverage, despite the clear lack of national interest, then it is an issue.

I'm not sure what you are not grasping tbh. The penalty was for a late tackle by Donald. Whether we think it was late is not the point, the TJ and the VR did, and gave a penalty where the ball landed from Richards' kick. Just to clarify - the TJ came on saying it was a late tackle, the ref thought it was fine. Alibert sought clarification from the VR who gave a decision on exactly what he had been asked about.

No, Alibert clearly asked about the late tackle, as the touch judge claimed there was one, and Alibert didn't think it was (I agree with him) but the VR felt it was late. You are probably right that they missed the original offence - or the ref left that incident to the TJ's as is usually the case, and the TJ came on for the later offence.

Must admit I had completely forgotten about Gleeson. Would ahve no issues if he was in there.

By far the best British player I have seen, and possibly the best I have seen in the world. It used to be frightening going to the match and wondering what kind of damage he was going to do to your team that day - it was usually lots!

I did consider this, and was unsure as to what the definition of a carry was. I didn't believe these halfback style offloads he made would count, although when looking at someone like Lee Briers, it says he does around 12 carries a game so that may disprove my theory! My point still stands in terms of style of props I prefer, although that is simply an opinion thing.

I believe the VR can give advice to the ref on whatever the ref asks him to. As this was a crucial stage of the game, asking the VR was the right thing to do IMHO. As you say it was a subjective decision, the commentators didn't all agree, the refereeing team didn't all agree and we certainly don't all agree on here, but Alibert was right to refer it if he had the chance to. I actually thought Alibert kept his cool really well here, in what was possibly one of the toughest moments of the year for a ref.

Thanks, I am comfortable with all this, my only question outstanding is whether McGuire could have been sinbinned in the circumstances or whether this was in effect 'cancelled' out by the fact that Wigan were given this 'greater' advantage. Cheers in advance.

Yep, I'd heard the stories about his manner, but I met him at Leicester Square Tube Station the night before Wembley and he was very polite and friendly, and happily shook our hands and posed for photo's with us. Absolute legend and was a real highlight of the weekend meeting him.

You can hear the linesman say he thought it was late, and Alibert said he thought it was fine - as it was a crucial stage, he rightly asked the VR to have a check. The VR then made the decision that Donald had tackled Richards late. I agree with you that it was a harsh call, and the slow-mo replays don't help with these calls. Whether we agree with it or not, the call was that Donald's tackle was late, and based on that decision, the penalty was in exactly the right position (right down to Alibert making Richards move a metre back at the last second).

Your original post made me think more about this. If they watched it and decided that McGuire's challenge was a professional foul, but then agreed to in effect play on as Wigan were still on the attack and gained a further advantage then wouldn't that negate the foul from McGuire ie. he wouldn't be able to be binned? I suppose it is like if somebody pulls somebody back but the team then goes on to score, the offender does not then get binned too. I wonder whether it was a case of one or the other, ie. you can't give advantage and the penalty in the Leeds half and sinbin McGuire. If you were going to bin McGuire, I wonder whether the penalty would have to have been given in Wigan's own half. It would be very interesting to get Cummings official stance on this one.

No penalty was given for McGuire's challenge, although this may simply have been due to the fact that the VR decided to allow advantage and decided there was a 2nd offence in a more beneficial spot to Wigan.

When SL first started and we moved to summer there was an opinion that big forwards were a thing of the past, and centres and 2nd rowers were pretty much the same thing. Nowadays I think there has been a shift back to bigger forwards knocking around and bigger packs are becomin more common. At my team, Warrington, there is no way that you would have Westwood or Louis Anderson playng in the centres. They are out and out back-rowers these days, and too big for centre. That isn't to say that there aren't certain utility players who can cover both slots, we have Grix for one, and I'm sure the likes of King or Atkins could do a job in the 2nd row, but at Test level, this surely isn't where we want to go. RP mentioned Atkins, and I agree that he is now looking more and more likely to get a chance. I have previously said I thought it was a year or two too early for him, as he still has some dvelopment work on his defence, but tbh as our options thin out, and the fact that he has had a good 2nd half to the season, I wonder whether he does deserve a run. There is also the safer option of Shenton and Yeaman, who both have Test experience.

Excellent post.

Under no circumstances should we consider playing a second rower at centre. Whatever people think of Bridge, he made a decent debut last year, played again against France this year, and would likely have gone, especially if Warrington win on Saturday and he had a couple more games to prove fitness.

Not sure actually. Was a TV game so you could hear what the ref was saying, he warned Westwood (I think) that he is risking being offside and as 2nd marker he needs to be closer. I don't think we got penalised for it though.

And that is where the problem lies, there is no standard distance quoted. If it was stated that these two players must be within 5m of the ptb then that would make sense, as it is, the word 'immediately' is used and this could be 1m or 5m.

I too am baffled by the anger over this incident. I have even seen somebody mention that he should have got a RED card for it!!!! This was a professional foul, just like we see quite regularly in games. Okay, it came at a crucial time of the match and I can understand people being peeved by it, but some of the responses from some people are hysterical. I'm not sure anybody has ever been referred for holding back!

If there has been an effective tackle and a controlled ptb, there really shouldn't just be a gap as standard. The defence (IMHO) should be able to fill that gap. It is up to the attack to win the collision and then make the gap by beating the markers, or creating their own gaps elsewhere in the defensive line. RL often gets criticism for being too attacking-focused so not sure I agree with this criticism about favouring the defence.

Not sure on the rule exactly (too late in the day to be searching the RFL site) but it is an offence to be too far from the player playing the ball. I know it is something that Warrington have been warned about in the past, although refs will generally have a word rather than penalising this.

TBH I don't have an issue with this. I don't see why the markers should have to be so close to the ptb. If you make them stand right in the face of the bloke playing the ball then it will just make the ptb more untidy IMHO, and isn't helpful to the marker as he will have the attacker right up into him. Also, anything that negates the scoot from acting half is good for me. Scooting should be on the back of a good quick ptb, and not as standard by compressing the markers to leave a gap.

No it's not.

They are very different things that you are talking about. Taking your time to restart the game is one thing, and the ref generally stops the clock so that there is no disadvantage. Stopping the other team taking a quick tap is a professional foul and a yellow card offence. I actually thought there should have been a Hudds yellow card for a professional foul too (holding down after a break), but the James one was very very clear cut.

Have there really been no binnings for this offence this year? Also, it is not a penalty. Play has stopped and therefore a penalty cannot be awarded. It was a professional foul, was stupid, and a clear yellow card. The bad decision that I remember was when he gavea knock on against Crusaders when it was actually one of the cleanest ptb's of the game!