Danny McGuire crocked

[Dave T]

It was so not a late tackle, assuming that this is what Bentham gave the penalty for, that even Clarke sid it was not a penalty!! As we agreed that neither the touchjudge or Alibert saw the McGuire foul and that it was not a late tackle by Donald, did Bentham award a penalty for something he was not asked to check? We ought to be told!!

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.

[Exiled Wiganer]

I enjoyed this game as much as any defeat I can remember in a long while, given that Wigan played with guts and skill, and so re-watched the game. I must say that my initial opinion was confirmed, that Alibert did very well and acted exactly right on these incidents. It is a shame that McGuire got injured at all, and especially in the manner he did so, as he has been playing very well. Without him and Buderus they could struggle a bit in the semi.

It really was a wonderful game. We have had some treats in SL this year.

[RP London]

I enjoyed this game as much as any defeat I can remember in a long while, given that Wigan played with guts and skill, and so re-watched the game. I must say that my initial opinion was confirmed, that Alibert did very well and acted exactly right on these incidents. It is a shame that McGuire got injured at all, and especially in the manner he did so, as he has been playing very well. Without him and Buderus they could struggle a bit in the semi.

It really was a wonderful game. We have had some treats in SL this year.

totally agree with this.. and could make the club call very very difficult

[Blind side johnny]

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.

Just to be ultra-pedantic Alibert asked the VR his advice, not for a decision. Only the referee can give any decision on the field of play; the other officials can simply give him their views of what occured.

[Blind side johnny]

This " we have the technology so why not use it" syndrome has frankly gone beyond it's limitations.

I disagree. It is simply moral blindness and arrogance to ignore technology that can improve the standard of decision making. When only referees made decisions things were far worse. Can I also assume that you would exclude any video reference to the disciplinary panel?

So much so that the Aussie commentators, who incidentally, speak a little more clearly not to mention objectively, upon this subject are noticeably becoming quite critical of the entire VR system.

I find agreement with them on that as I personally believe that as with all items such as this the controlling element of those that grab it is never ending and, the need to go ever further is always paramount in their beliefs.

The Aussie commentators speak what many fans call "common sense" which normally means inconsistent rubbish based upon what they would like to happen after every incident, usually based upon how the game used to be played when they were active. To call their comments objective is really beyond a joke.

[Bulliac]

I disagree. It is simply moral blindness and arrogance to ignore technology that can improve the standard of decision making. When only referees made decisions things were far worse. Can I also assume that you would exclude any video reference to the disciplinary panel?

If the video were always correct that may be a reasonable position to hold but we had an incident in Cardiff a year back where the video ref jumped in and gave a blatantly incorrect decision, followed up by enquiries and apologies.

At least back in the 'good old days' players accepted the decision, right or right, ('cos the ref was ALWAYS right ) and us speccies went to the pub and debated it. To be honest, I don't know if it was actually better, but it seemed to cause less controversy..........or am I just looking back with rose coloured specs on??

[Errol Stock]

or am I just looking back with rose coloured specs on??

Aye lad - I think you may be..

Always remember - there is no such thing as the "good old days".

I think the VR is fantastic - its added another dimension the game, the wait, the result, the controversy, the drama and the shots of the crowd tingling with nerves - just add to the thrills for me.

I accept there have been errors - but regardless - where there is a human interaction with the technology, errors will be made as thats what we do. Its not good when you are on the wrong end of it, but without the benefit of the re-run, the original instant decision has a high possibility of being wrong anyway.

I fail to understand why some berate "our" system when the World Cup puffball pundits as screaming out for FIFA to bring it in. And just look at the attitude of their "chairman" - twerp.

NB. And as I hit "Submit" - I am wondering if Michael Withers try in the 99 GF would have been awarded with no VR!!!

[Bulliac]

Aye lad - I think you may be..

Always remember - there is no such thing as the "good old days".

I think the VR is fantastic - its added another dimension the game, the wait, the result, the controversy, the drama and the shots of the crowd tingling with nerves - just add to the thrills for me.

I accept there have been errors - but regardless - where there is a human interaction with the technology, errors will be made as thats what we do. Its not good when you are on the wrong end of it, but without the benefit of the re-run, the original instant decision has a high possibility of being wrong anyway.

I fail to understand why some berate "our" system when the World Cup puffball pundits as screaming out for FIFA to bring it in. And just look at the attitude of their "chairman" - twerp.

NB. And as I hit "Submit" - I am wondering if Michael Withers try in the 99 GF would have been awarded with no VR!!!

Oh, I know about the 'good old days', that's why I used inverted commas, but I'm still not sure that the VR has been an improvement, and if it's not a definite improvement then, for me, it's just an expensive addition which isn't giving value for money.

To go along with the same argument, I do wonder about the annual sillies thrown in by Red Hall. This season's silly has been the "obstruction" where no-one is actually obstructed, though I do think this has been trialled before. The VR has been used on this nearly every time (at non Sky games the obstructions seem much more clear cut, the 'old type' obvious ones) and I wonder if they would have brought this in if the VR hadn't existed?

Dunno whether the VR changed the outcome of the Wither's incident (though it was actually Leon Pryce's 'try' which was disallowed), Withers denied to the end that he touched the ball, and watching replays there is absolutely no variation in the ball's flight as his hand moves towards it, so for me it should have been given. Whether the ref on the field would have given it is something we'll never know, I guess.

[Blind side johnny]

Oh, I know about the 'good old days', that's why I used inverted commas, but I'm still not sure that the VR has been an improvement, and if it's not a definite improvement then, for me, it's just an expensive addition which isn't giving value for money.

To go along with the same argument, I do wonder about the annual sillies thrown in by Red Hall. This season's silly has been the "obstruction" where no-one is actually obstructed, though I do think this has been trialled before. The VR has been used on this nearly every time (at non Sky games the obstructions seem much more clear cut, the 'old type' obvious ones) and I wonder if they would have brought this in if the VR hadn't existed?

Just to extend this a little: in the "good old days" every "dummy runner" would have been pinged for obstruction every time. I do believe that this is a tactic that is now blatantly overused and now allows the defenders to "take" the dummy (and collision) and negate the move.