two shocking video referee decisions tonight lads..... turned the game by 12 points but typical of bentham when reffing or video reffing a team from the other side of the pennines.... and ganson cained you for doing the same as Wigan.... but good performance non the less

Wigan probably edged it but get sick and tired of their spoiling tactics and begging!! Bentham and Ganson . . . who would have thought they would favour the "bigger side"?

Can't fault the Ferres no try decision but the Carmont try was a blatant obstruction.

Quote ="Fully"Can't fault the Ferres no try decision but the Carmont try was a blatant obstruction.'" yfrog.com/kfq0rpyj angle shown once... Been Tweeted by all the RL journos right now.

Quote ="Fully"Can't fault the Ferres no try decision but the Carmont try was a blatant obstruction.'" yfrog.com/kfq0rpyj angle shown once... Been Tweeted by all the RL journos right now.

Not convinced on that angle. Still think the ball is balanced between his knees.

If there is doubt, then "benefit of the doubt" has to be the way. Or why have the rule? Its not "benefit of guess!"

Anyone got any angles on the blatant constant whinging from Wigan? They're a fecking disgrace to the game. I like how Ganson asked McGoldrick "are you captain?..no...well go away then" yet everytime there's a tackle, incident, anything the Wigan players are allowed to shout at him what the desision should be and he often gives it. No doubt he won't have to answer this question but it's obvious one rule for wigan and one rule for everyone else.

That angle definatley looks as though it could be given. As has been asked, why isn't that angle shown again rather than the other which didn't show anything of the ball? We like conspiracy theories in rugby league but it's funny how the super dooper cherries are losing and then a quick dose of penatly, penalty, penalty followed by obstruction ignored and decent camera angles not shown and wigan are back top where Sky wants them.

The game was a good one. Our kids did us proud tonight and nearly got the win. Shame you can't help but think had we not been playing against the Wigan tanoy announcer and his final word we might have got a result. Note to the RFL. Let's just have good games of rugby decided by rugby and not every fooker else.

If it takes 2+ mins to review a decision then that surely shows its inconclusive. If only we had a BENEFIT OF DOUBT option....oh hang on....BENTham



Very proud of the lads tonight, especially the young uns who stood up against a very strong Wigan side, the goal line defence in the last ten mins was superb.





Think Wigans defence tonight probably just deserved them the victory but who knows what may have been had the two decisions gone the way they should've.

Not surprising people are getting disillusioned with this great game when most of the time these days it doesn't seem to matter what happens on the field but when focus does actually turn to on field matters then its being ruined by the officials.

Still the future certainly looks bright as long as the idiots running the game don't ruin that as well

You were well cheated tonight if I was a Cas fan I'de be well ed off! Bentham is a disgrace! from the first angle the ball deinitely looked down, after it was on his legs.At least benifit of the doubt

It seems to me as though the video ref looks for reasons not to give a try if its a club outside of the big 4 and looks for reasons to give a try if its a big 4 club. Not the first time its happened this year and im sure it wont be the last.

I think Wigan justed edged it but a very good performance from our lads night. Some of our defence was outstanding at times. Thought Davies had a decent game but Emmitt was outstanding again, hope the injuries not too bad.

Seriously?

The obstruction decision you have a point on, but as the picture "being tweeted by journos" shows, the ball is clearly held up. THAT was absolutely the right decision. It never got to ground. Having said that, I was expecting "Benefit of the doubt" to go up on the screen, even though it would have been blatantly wrong.

As for whinging, how about Mr Emmit? Dummy spitting worse than Graham on show tonight.

Bentham made some right howlers of decisions tonight, but he got more wrong against Wigan than he did against Castleford. Overall, he wasn't too bad.

That Davies is dirty, isn't he... he'll be facing the disciplinary for about 3 different things.

i saw jake having a laugh with the opposition players not whinging you need to take those cherry and white glasses off and you should know a whinger when you see one





as for Davies doubt he will get called up may get a caution but i would be surprised if he gets that

Typo corrected

I would disagree, dont actually think that picture shows anything conclusively. I think the ball is down (maybe im wrong), it wasn't given so it doesn't really matter now.

Emmit does whinge a bit but he's far from the worst, he has been pulled up about this before. Put in a solid shift tonight until his injury.

I wouldn't call Davies a dirty player, i'd call it commitment. He did make a couple of bad tackles (if they can be called that) but he's took a big step up in class tonight and done well, plays with a bit of passion and thats what we like to see at Cas.

The picture only shows it at that split second time, where are the ones leadoing up to it ? , The wigan players were trying to pull him back all the time so this clip could have been at that point, its inconclusive and should have been given the benefit,

Let's quote the INTELLIGENT reply first.



And how about the leg underneath the ball? The distance between ball and ground? It's CLEARLY not a try.

The best bit (or the worst depending how you look at it) of Emmit's whinging was when he spat towards Bentham and CLEARLY called him... well, the swear filter would block it out, so there's no point. And he was clearly getting too wound up towards the end, as could be seen from the number of penalties he gave away.

In defence, he was one of the biggest dangers, since we had slippyitis (I realise "itis" refers to swelling, not an actually condition, before someone decides to try and pull me up on that), his big hits were both frightening from our perspective, and clearly gave Cas the boot up the backside, the one after the kickoff after we'd scored our last of the quickfire tries as a prime case in point. Davies should learn from Emmit, THAT was how to put big hits in, not swinging arms around the head.



You clearly missed the second half of the match if the ball strip called as a knock-on is the only thing you can remember Emmit doing. Well done for providing evidence on the Bentham bias towards Cas, though. Top man.



With another typo?? Give that man a medal! And maybe a copy of the teamsheet so he can spell Tomkins' name correctly. Nice one, Rodney.

Incidentally, which one? And what did he supposedly do?

What a sad act you are, try listening to the game and read the comments on VT, ie "Lots of undue pressure on a joint there from Lima on Emmit, yet again. But did anyone notice Sam Tomkins telling him to do it as they were playing the ball. Shocking.", T!T

That for me shows that the ball is not on the floor

Massive fail.

Lesson 1, "Learn from your mistakes" was obviously a success.

Lesson 2, "Try and reply with intelligence and facts rather than insults and bias" is next. Looks like a bit of a task.

You clearly have some sort of problem with Jake Emmitt...


Wigan were clearly given benefit of the doubt with their 'obstruction' try. It was a 50/50 for me because there was still a defender in a position to make a tackle and halt the move; however the dummy runner prevented our defence from sliding together to cover the wing and it could just as easily have been disallowed for that.

With the Ferres effort, there wasn't any point in the replays where you could conclusively say that the ball wasn't grounded; that is to say you could clearly see something between the ball and the grass and prove the ball had not been grounded. That considered, it should've been given as benefit of the doubt. Even McGuire seemed surprised it had been disallowed.

I really do get the feeling that Bentham has something against us this season and he's been pretty consistent in that from the very beginning.

Bentham is a proud Warrington fan and IIRC we never won a game that he was officiating last year, Ganson is a staunch Saints fan yet you muppets believe we had the rub of the green???

What about the 3 ball steals that were given as knock ons that ganson refused to even glance at the reply, what about the Phantom penalty in the corner when Finch was playing the ball, what about the 2 knock ons from your one good player that were ignored, what about the fact the you only packed a scrum down with 5 men on more than one occasion.

Need I go on??

Wow. The bitterness is strong with you. IIRC, didn't you win the game?!

We know we're no angels but the sooner you can accept that about your lot, the better. Perhaps tiddlywinks would be more your thing - collision sports seem to get your back up.

I dont often post on referees performances as its a difficult thankless task, however I am in full agreement with you on Bentham a season or two back he always seemed to have a good game for us, this season though we seem to get one dodgy decision after another out of him.

As for last nights decisions, I thought the obstruction was a 50/50 probably giving benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. I thought Ferres scored, again from benefit of the doubt as you couldnt conclusively prove either way.

Finally what a to**er Paul Cullen is, this guys obvious dislike of Cas is laughable, never has a good word to say about us. I reckon Richard Wright and TM had a foursome with Cullen & Benthams wives and thats why there so ed off with us!

It's not a 'good game for us' that we want them to have. What we want and what the game needs is for any given incident, in any given game, with any given team of match officials, to result in the same consistent, fair outcome in alignment with the operational rules. This is something which we seem to be moving further and further away from in the last couple of years.

No bitterness from me, I'm happy that we beat you despite playing nowhere near our best and having 3 or 4 players continuing on one leg! I'm happy that despite you coming to head hunt and rough us up as others have tried that we didn't rise and beat you fair and square.

I'm merely highlighting some of the laughable decisions that went against us despite your calls of foul play

I don't need to accept anything about our lot, we play within the rules and when we cross the line we are rightly penalised, however our play wins us trophies and as long as that is the case I'll continue to be happy.

What do you mean by collision sports get my back up??? I don't play any collision sports