Sat 24th Feb: WCC: Wigan Warriors v Penrith Panthers KO 8pm (Sky/BBC/SuperLeague+)

[Lowdesert]

6 hours ago, dkw said:

Seeing how upset the aussies are over this result has just made it all the more sweeter, though its strange seeing them get bothered by a game that isnt important etc....

If Wardles pass to Marshall had been better(, in the 2nd half,) a try would have killed the Panthers off altogether.  I thought that missed chance would be Wigans undoing but luckily it wasn’t.

 

Edited February 26 by Lowdesert

[bobbruce]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The international laws of Rugby League state that 'where two or more playersare effecting the same tackle - irrespective of whether all but one “drops off” the tackle, and the ball is subsequently taken from the tackled player, a penalty will be awarded against the player or players effecting the tackle.'

I think there was a meeting this week where Penrith asked for it to be international rules but with the ball steal rules the NRL use. I don’t know if that was accepted or just a request Penrith made. 

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I think there was a meeting this week where Penrith asked for it to be international rules but with the ball steal rules the NRL use. I don’t know if that was accepted or just a request Penrith made. 

Really, that's just ridiculous to just make up the laws for a game... having multiple laws for different competitions is bad enough without teams asking for a law to be added for a game.

I hope the fact it was penalised means they were told to do one.

[DavidM]

7 hours ago, Wigan Riversider said:

Greg Alexander has said that the Wardle try is the worst in history.

Greg Alexander the Penrith legend ? Maybe he should have the class of his coach and acknowledge that his world beating side didn’t win because they couldn’t capitalise on the glut of territory they had , anything else is deflection 

[Father Ted]

In his pressy Ivan Clearly was asked about his sides end of sets plays as they were caught in possession on 5 or 6 occasions. His rely was that he thought they weren't good enough and where he would look to improve.

Thought Penrith out played Wigan but the Warriors outscored the Panthers. 

[Hopie]

10 hours ago, LeeF said:

Correct.

Also

 

Whole body, do bodys not include arms?

[StandOffHalf]

16 hours ago, LeeF said:

Correct.

Also

 

There was attention but Wardle chose to lift up his arm illegally. 

I'm quite surprised to see so many RL fans in England looking to justify this call by the Video Ref.

[StandOffHalf]

9 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The international laws of Rugby League state that 'where two or more playersare effecting the same tackle - irrespective of whether all but one “drops off” the tackle, and the ball is subsequently taken from the tackled player, a penalty will be awarded against the player or players effecting the tackle.'

The NRL interpretation was part of this game. Moore obviously just forgot that in the heat of the moment.

[StandOffHalf]

NRL 2024: Graham Annesley says the process was wrong in controversial Wigan try (foxsports.com.au)

I don't really agree here. The process was fine, but Kendall focused on the attention from defenders in the tackle and missed the illegal lifting of the arm to bring the ball closer to/over the line.

[JohnM]

It's a shame that so many are keen to confirm the already well-earned Australian reputation for poor sportsmanship. Pity they don't show the same class as Cleary did after the final hooter.

https://youtu.be/4U9Yl5CXvcQ?si=eakRhY-iqe19cplR

[MZH]

For me there were 3 contentious calls in the game. Some people have said about forward passes in the Leeming try, but to me they were the sort of passes you see 20+ times a game. They were borderline but you see passes like that allowed all the time.

So that leaves the ball steal, the Wardle try and the Penrith disallowed try. The ball steal was obviously the wrong decision, and to me, the disallowed try was obviously the right decision. It didn't look like a try in real time, and not of the replays suggested the ball had got to the ground. I'm surprised how many people think it should have been given.

The Wardle try is the big one. I don't think it was a try. However, I also don't think it's such a horrible call as some are making out. I do think the ball got to the line. They showed an angle afterwards (that I don't think the video ref saw) from the opposite corner flag which looked to show the ball on the line. The ref also got in for a close look and gave it on the field, which suggests he saw the ball on the line. I would have disallowed it for a double movement, because there's no doubt he was short initially and then there was a lot of wrestling and then it got to the line. But even that isn't an easy call to make, because there's nothing to say that Wardle promoted the ball. The Penrith players were pulling on the ball and wrestling and Wardle is doing the same. So is that double movement?

If you showed me the video for the first time and said is that a try I would say no. But I don't think it's the shocker of a decision that many are making it out to be.

Edited February 27 by MZH

[Kayakman]

There were some close calls (there always are) but I thought the ref did a good job....Penrith blew it by finishing so many sets without  a kick...they thought they could run it down the throat of Wigan, but they were held....victory Wigan.

When the Super League champs get hosted by West Tigers next year things might be different.

[Dunbar]

7 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

The NRL interpretation was part of this game. Moore obviously just forgot that in the heat of the moment.

I don't understand why we had the NRL interpretation for the ball steal rather than the international interpretation.

When and how was this confirmed?

[Harry Stottle]

On 25/02/2024 at 12:52, Phil said:

I agree but in some areas of soshul meeja it’s just a huge pile on, lots of it by English fans and I don’t get why.

A great night for Wigan but also for English rugby league in my opinion 

It would have been a truly fantastic night had there been no contentious decisions to contend with, they marred the occasion for a lot of people, I would have loved to beat them fair and square but that simply was not the case no matter how it is looked at.

[WN83]

1 hour ago, MZH said:

For me there were 3 contentious calls in the game. Some people have said about forward passes in the Leeming try, but to me they were the sort of passes you see 20+ times a game. They were borderline but you see passes like that allowed all the time.

So that leaves the ball steal, the Wardle try and the Penrith disallowed try. The ball steal was obviously the wrong decision, and to me, the disallowed try was obviously the right decision. It didn't look like a try in real time, and not of the replays suggested the ball had got to the ground. I'm surprised how many people think it should have been given.

The Wardle try is the big one. I don't think it was a try. However, I also don't think it's such a horrible call as some are making out. I do think the ball got to the line. They showed an angle afterwards (that I don't think the video ref saw) from the opposite corner flag which looked to show the ball on the line. The ref also got in for a close look and gave it on the field, which suggests he saw the ball on the line. I would have disallowed it for a double movement, because there's no doubt he was short initially and then there was a lot of wrestling and then it got to the line. But even that isn't an easy call to make, because there's nothing to say that Wardle promoted the ball. The Penrith players were pulling on the ball and wrestling and Wardle is doing the same. So is that double movement?

If you showed me the video for the first time and said is that a try I would say no. But I don't think it's the shocker of a decision that many are making it out to be.

Talking sense like all that won't catch on

[JohnM]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It would have been a truly fantastic night had there been no contentious decisions to contend with, they marred the occasion for a lot of people, I would have loved to beat them fair and square but that simply was not the case no matter how it is looked at.

"they marred the occasion for a lot of people"

well, one, anyway.

"I would have loved to beat them"

That's not quite how it looks.

[Harry Stottle]

On 25/02/2024 at 12:53, Dunbar said:

That's social media for you.  It's a minefield of nonsense. 

This is the only social media I do Dunny, no Facebook, Twitter or any of the others I don't know about so you have the better of me, but I should imagine just like you those posters and indeed everyone on this site has an opinion.

Your response reminds me of the Women watching her son in the church parade who exclaims "look everyone is out of step except our Johnny"

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It would have been a truly fantastic night had there been no contentious decisions to contend with, they marred the occasion for a lot of people, I would have loved to beat them fair and square but that simply was not the case no matter how it is looked at.

I take it you consider the Leigh vctory over St Helens in the Challenge Cup semi final (and Leigh's subsequent lifting of the cup) to be marred due to the contencious decisions around the tackling technique of John Asiata?

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

"they marred the occasion for a lot of people"

well, one, anyway.

"I would have loved to beat them"

That's not quite how it looks.

Give over John, hand on heart if those decisions had gone against Wigan what would you have said?

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I take it you consider the Leigh vctory over St Helens in the Challenge Cup semi final (and Leigh's subsequent lifting of the cup) to be marred due to the contencious decisions around the tackling technique of John Asiata?

Those were fair tackles Dunny and as I said at the time has it happened the one on Passi was tant amount to being "orgasmic" probably asgood a try saving tackle as I have witnessed in my 60÷ years of involvement with this game.

PS Wellens blew all that out of proportion, and two faced as he condoned the same technique from one of his own players earlier in the season.

Edited February 27 by Harry Stottle

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I don't understand why we had the NRL interpretation for the ball steal rather than the international interpretation.

When and how was this confirmed?

Its utter nonsense isnt it, play to one set of rules, dont try and frigg it by altering just one part of that set of rules to suit one of the clubs. 

I dont think it was ever even confirmed was it, so as far as I`m concerned currently the ref got the call 100% right. 

Edited February 27 by dkw

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Those were fair tackles Dunny and as I said at the time has it happened the one on Passi was tant amount to being "orgasmic" probably asgood a try saving tackle as I have witnessed in my 60÷ years of involvement with this game.

Are you saying those tackles were not in any way contentious?

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Are you saying those tackles were not in any way contentious?

 No not at all. If they were action would have ensued by the ref. They happened at the Saints fans end and not one of them objected at the time.

Incidently he tackled a KR player just the same in the final and Minchella took retribution on Asiata and got penalised for it, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH TECHNIQUE.

[Dunbar]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 No not at all. If they were action would have ensued by the ref. They happened at the Saints fans end and not one of them objected at the time.

Incidently he tackled a KR player just the same in the final and Minchella took retribution on Asiata and got penalised for it, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH TECHNIQUE.

Capital letters don't really change the conversation.

The bottom line is that the tackles were contentious.  A number of people at the time came out and said that they were reckless and the laws have subsequntly been revised to esnure that these type of tackles and their reckless endangerment are now outlawed.

But I agree with one thing.  The ref didn't penalise them.  In the same way the ref made decisions in the Wigan Penrith game, the ref made decisions in the Leigh Saints game.

But it is funny how the contentious decisions in one game marred the win, and in the other it brings out an all caps defence of the victory.  Who do you support again?

Edited February 27 by Dunbar

[dkw]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Are you saying those tackles were not in any way contentious?

Literally "But they were different"  unbelievable.