The whole Wigan Club is classless mate.

You remember how classless it was cheating your way out of relegation?

Poor old Castleford took your place in the national league.

The fans are classless for throwing bottles towards the Leeds players. You just as bad as the Hull FC fans who invaded the pitch after Leeds rightfully won them in the challenge cup some years ago.

Shame on Wigan Warriors!

I going to let this lie because life is to short to go round in circles.As for you damo I rest my case.

Everyone makes mistakes pal!

Heck Wigan did it one time with Mike Gregory!

Still no mention of the spear tackle?

It's like an episode of x-files over in pie land this week, there are hundreds of moaning bleating Wigan fans venting about nothing incidents but spookily no one can remember the worst play off the game.

Maybe Wigan did play better than us but they did not score a single try, is that totally dominant? I'm sure it's the refs fault anyway.

We must take into account the feelings of Wigan fans. A crushing realisation might just be dawning upon them. It's a realisation that swept over Huddersfield, Wakefield, Brdaford, Cas and Hull fans at earlier stages this season.

It's the realisation that despite all their posturing and preening over their heroes great start and the champions indifferent start that, in reality, when all is said and done, the chances are it will be us and Saints contesting the trophies....yet again.

The only fans who have not behaved like absolute cocks on here and gotten carried with their great early form/our poor early form are Warrington. With a few exceptions the rest of them have behaved liked pillocks this year and have learned nothing about Leeds from the last three years.

I suspect this is the real reason behind the tantrums and frustrations directed at the officials in our last two games.

All spot on which makes it even funnier when they are on here spouting bollox spitting bile!

It's not the first time Senior has disgraced himself in the Challenge Cup.

Tomkins should not have been within a swinging leg of Senior anyway - He was already tackled by TWO players and there is no need for a third to get involved - is there?

For me the key point is that Farrell was in the air.

If he was genuinely trying to block the kick he'd try and make himself as big as possible, he didn't he lead with the shoulder with arms not outstretched.

If he was trying to make an effective tackle, he'd keep his feet on the ground to get his weight into the tackle.

The fact that he was mid-air is no excuse, as he shouldn't have been in that position in the first place, unless he was genuinely trying to block the ball, which seems strange given that he looked like he was trying to make himself as small as possible, rather than as big

WTF

A point I have been trying to make to the Wiganers and a point they appear to be ignoring.

The only thing I would add is that in addition he jumped into McGuire's left side upper body and the ball was at the end of McGuire's right foot. There was no intention whatsoever of charging the kick. It was a malicious, late and high shot into a kicker.

Does anyone with more patience and a nicer tone than me want to explain about third man in to Chorley Rhino?

The Farrell decision was harsh but correct with the current ruling, no problem.
The Senior one however should have been a minimum of a sin bin.

Joel Tomkins is 6'4" tall and was not lay behind the play the ball. If he had been then there [imaybe[/i a case of him kicking out to clear the ptb (still dangerous) However Joel was stood up and got kicked above the eye. No was is that accidental. Let's see what the match review panel say about it, and Coleys tackle.

Like a previous poster, I'm amazed at how a normal man can kick a 6'4" male above the eye, whilst that man is laid on the floor with two other grown men laying across him - The Amazing Rubber Man had nothing on Keith Senior.

Glad someone else interprets the incident similar to me!

I stand to be corrected but I'm sure the rules state you must have at least one foot on the ground when making a tackle (just as the player being tackled must have at least one foot on the ground). Amazingly, none of the commentry team seemed to pick up on this. Add to that the tackle being late/off the ball and I think you have a justifiable sin-binning.

One observation I made from the Senior/Tomkins incident was that the ref didn't see it and made his decision to penalise Senior having watched replays whilst Tomkins was being patched up. Again - happy to be corrected - I thought the ref was not allowed to use replays without consulting the video ref first. No problems with the decision but (as someone stated earlier) had the kick not connected with someone play would have undoubtedly continued.

Slightly off topic but can anyone think of someone giving away more than 2 penalties in a game while in posession after the tackle was complete?

I remember a game in 05 (maybe Widnes) when the ref decided to clamp down on incorrect play the balls for about 20 mins, and I think one of our players may have been a repeat offender

Senior Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954 Coley Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1951

Senior Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954 Coley Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1951

Quote ="Frosties."Senior Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954 Coley Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1951'" No mention of the Farrell incident. Assuming the RFL must have decided the sin binning was sufficient.

Quote ="Frosties."Senior Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954 Coley Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1951'" No mention of the Farrell incident. Assuming the RFL must have decided the sin binning was sufficient.

Which it was.

Innit.

It can't be late if the tackler's committed (at least not in pieworld).

Pieworld has been great this week.

For completion, Peacock and Farrell not charged: www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1953 www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1955

For completion, Peacock and Farrell not charged: www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1953 www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1955

Quote ="Frosties."Senior Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954'" One rule for one [urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=637[/url

Quote ="Frosties."Senior Citied - www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1954'" One rule for one [urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=637[/url

Hmm...