Challenge Cup 2025

[Sports Prophet]

Call Nigel. I’m sure he will fix it.

[jacksy]

25 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Call Nigel. I’m sure he will fix it.

Or Neil

Where there's blame, there's a claim.

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

That error strewn performance from Wakefield last night will ensure Leigh can take as many tickets as they like for the forthcoming cup game at Belle Vue. 

[Worzel]

Managed to get my tickets for the Hull quarter final, one of the lucky few (I missed out for the league match), and looks like Rovers sold the away allocation in under 8 minutes tonight... nothing left at 18.08 🫨

What a time to be alive!

[Damien]

Great stuff:

Edited March 26 by Damien

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Great stuff:

This is amazing news, isn't it? 

 

[Damien]

 

 

[Coggo]

Feels like the Cup is on the up, and there’s some evidence.
 

Why? Probably partly due to more effort put into the coverage but also perhaps because it’s a comp with more winners than the usual Leeds-Saints-Wigan Super League GF triumvirate. 

[fighting irish]

I'll say it once and then I'll leave it but having our premier televised events decided on a refereeing error, in front of millions of viewers, is not a good thing.

How on earth the video referee can judge that the Warrington man didn't ''intentionally'' ground the ball (with his body (between chest and hips)) is utterly preposterous. There's no doubt he did touch the ball down, but the touchdown was disallowed because he didn't mean to do it.

What do you think he was trying to do? Break Dance his way to fame and fortune?

Great game, great spectacle concluded with a complete travesty.

It'll go down in history as a day of infamy. 

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I'll say it once and then I'll leave it but having our premier televised events decided on a refereeing error, in front of millions of viewers, is not a good thing.

How on earth the video referee can judge that the Warrington man didn't ''intentionally'' ground the ball (with his body (between chest and hips)) is utterly preposterous. There's no doubt he did touch the ball down, but the touchdown was disallowed because he didn't mean to do it.

What do you think he was trying to do? Break Dance his way to fame and fortune?

Great game, great spectacle concluded with a complete travesty.

It'll go down in history as a day of infamy. 

The core point in the discussion is one for the match thread, but on the point in question, I don't think controversy will harm the game at all. Obviously it is not something you want, but controversy like this doesn't switch people off in any material numbers, there is no evidence to suggest it does. 

People watching that game will have seen a blockbuster finish, with the heartbreak and jubilation that only sport can bring.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The core point in the discussion is one for the match thread, but on the point in question, I don't think controversy will harm the game at all. Obviously it is not something you want, but controversy like this doesn't switch people off in any material numbers, there is no evidence to suggest it does. 

People watching that game will have seen a blockbuster finish, with the heartbreak and jubilation that only sport can bring.

People massively turned off football for Maradona's handball, the 1975 European Cup Final, etc etc... and they were, unlike these, not actually in the rules!

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

People massively turned off football for Maradona's handball, the 1975 European Cup Final, etc etc... and they were, unlike these, not actually in the rules!

I don’t think that’s remotely true.

[fighting irish]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The core point in the discussion is one for the match thread, but on the point in question, I don't think controversy will harm the game at all. Obviously it is not something you want, but controversy like this doesn't switch people off in any material numbers, there is no evidence to suggest it does. 

People watching that game will have seen a blockbuster finish, with the heartbreak and jubilation that only sport can bring.

Fair enough mate. I'd just like to have got it right.

[Tommygilf]

14 hours ago, Damien said:

 

 

I respect the aims of talking up the Cup here, and good numbers like these should always be posted.

I'm really not sure anybody knows what to do with it though. 

Those numbers are interesting to say the least. The Last 8 attendance is the combined total of 4 QFs, 2 Semi Finals and the Final itself. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I don’t think that’s remotely true.

My sarcasm was lost...

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Fair enough mate. I'd just like to have got it right.

I'd have loved them to have deemed it grounded too!!!

[gingerjon]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

My sarcasm was lost...

I got up very early this morning! Time for another coffee.

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

I'll say it once and then I'll leave it but having our premier televised events decided on a refereeing error, in front of millions of viewers, is not a good thing.

How on earth the video referee can judge that the Warrington man didn't ''intentionally'' ground the ball (with his body (between chest and hips)) is utterly preposterous. There's no doubt he did touch the ball down, but the touchdown was disallowed because he didn't mean to do it.

What do you think he was trying to do? Break Dance his way to fame and fortune?

Great game, great spectacle concluded with a complete travesty.

It'll go down in history as a day of infamy. 

I enjoyed this post.

I don't enjoy the VR making calls and not explaining them properly, they have a live mic and take ages to make decisions, yet the call that decides the biggest game of the season so far doesn't get a full explanation, that along with the on field ref saying "there's mitigation" but not explaining what it is are my pet peeve this season. They made RL into a primarily TV product (you can't here the ref in the stadium) and they don't explain the calls to the TV audience. 

[Padge]

58 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I don’t think that’s remotely true.

You could have left out remotely.

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I enjoyed this post.

I don't enjoy the VR making calls and not explaining them properly, they have a live mic and take ages to make decisions, yet the call that decides the biggest game of the season so far doesn't get a full explanation, that along with the on field ref saying "there's mitigation" but not explaining what it is are my pet peeve this season. They made RL into a primarily TV product (you can't here the ref in the stadium) and they don't explain the calls to the TV audience. 

Yes, I agree with this. I'm not sure why they have actively decided to make communication worse this year.

[up the robins]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

I'll say it once and then I'll leave it but having our premier televised events decided on a refereeing error, in front of millions of viewers, is not a good thing.

How on earth the video referee can judge that the Warrington man didn't ''intentionally'' ground the ball (with his body (between chest and hips)) is utterly preposterous. There's no doubt he did touch the ball down, but the touchdown was disallowed because he didn't mean to do it.

What do you think he was trying to do? Break Dance his way to fame and fortune?

Great game, great spectacle concluded with a complete travesty.

It'll go down in history as a day of infamy. 

Infamy, infamy the referees all got it in infamy.

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'd have loved them to have deemed it grounded too!!!

Me too. Possibly for different reasons.

I confess, I have half a dozen close family and friends, who have represented Warrington in the last 50 years but I saw myself as a neutral spectator for this match.

In my opinion, the try should have been disallowed and the game restarted with a drop out from under the sticks. It's irrefutable that the Warrington winger touched the ball down, with his torso. Therefore no try was scored.

I'm insisting it's absolutely undeniable. Not yet heard any HKR fans claiming (explaining why) I'm wrong.

[ELBOWSEYE]

4 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Me too. Possibly for different reasons.

I confess, I have half a dozen close family and friends, who have represented Warrington in the last 50 years but I saw myself as a neutral spectator for this match.

In my opinion, the try should have been disallowed and the game restarted with a drop out from under the sticks. It's irrefutable that the Warrington winger touched the ball down, with his torso. Therefore no try was scored.

I'm insisting it's absolutely undeniable. Not yet heard any HKR fans claiming (explaining why) I'm wrong.

I think the timing of the decision makes it worse, in the 2019 final when saints had a try ruled out Very early in the game that looked dodgy, not as much outcry was heard (apart from saints fans) with under 2 minutes to go there was little chance of recovering. The clash of heads with Dufty were he fractured his cheekbone would have been given as a penalty at least in any other game which since Bachelor was charged for and given and accepted points for. There seems a effort to not penalize high profile games for fear of ruining the spectacle,yet they end up creating an even bigger controversy by themselves.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I think the timing of the decision makes it worse, in the 2019 final when saints had a try ruled out Very early in the game that looked dodgy, not as much outcry was heard (apart from saints fans) with under 2 minutes to go there was little chance of recovering. The clash of heads with Dufty were he fractured his cheekbone would have been given as a penalty at least in any other game which since Bachelor was charged for and given and accepted points for. There seems a effort to not penalize high profile games for fear of ruining the spectacle,yet they end up creating an even bigger controversy by themselves.

I was amazed the Batchelor / Dufty head clash wasn't given as a penalty, particularly given there was a stoppage to review it anyway.

It was quite wide out, so they may not have gone for the goal, for risk of missing and not getting the ball dead. But they should have at least been given the option. An extra 2 points there and KR can't afford to let Sneyd get hold of the ball in drop goal range. 

[Click]

59 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Me too. Possibly for different reasons.

I confess, I have half a dozen close family and friends, who have represented Warrington in the last 50 years but I saw myself as a neutral spectator for this match.

In my opinion, the try should have been disallowed and the game restarted with a drop out from under the sticks. It's irrefutable that the Warrington winger touched the ball down, with his torso. Therefore no try was scored.

I'm insisting it's absolutely undeniable. Not yet heard any HKR fans claiming (explaining why) I'm wrong.

You should read the actual match thread when it occured, rather than a generic thread.