Spot on mate, and it brings us back to the issue of clarification on the exact role and responsibilities of the video ref!

Uncle Albert's problem is that he has no authority and is very easy to change his mind and crowds are getting to know this! I think he got the Donald call on Richards spot on first time, even in slow-mo Donald clearly does not see the ball getting kicked by Richards as his head down and he is quite rightly just looking to make the tackle. Richards knows he is in trouble and that Donald is very likely to take him in to touch... that is why he bloody kicked the ball in the first place!!!

The touch judge should have been waved away (in respect of this incident) and Alibert should have had the balls to stick with his original and correct decision IMO on the Donald/Richards incident full stop!

The issue of Alibert and Bentham is the one that interests me most because I don't think that the touch judge saw it so how did Bentham get involved? If Alibert asked Bentham to look at something in back play because Wigan players were protesting, fair enough, but it looks like Bentham is just chiming in on the basis of the replays that Sky were generally showing. If Alibert asked Bentham why did Bentham not then get a 'formal' video replay from Sky? I think both Alibert & Bentham were crapping themselves over a reverse Millennium Magic type incident and in doing do did the things that we were told they couldn't do in the future.

It was a penalty and a yellow card (which should have come, even if he was injured) to McGuire but it was 20 metres further back and even Cummins will know that when he looks at the video! Alibert is very, very poor under pressure!

I think he was definitely injured in bringing Carmont down, if something happened after that is another incident.

I think Donald was committed to the tackle on Richards, but we should have recieved a penalty for the McGuire challenge, and from that position I think we'd have kicked for touch and tried a last gasp drop goal attempt.

And for anyone who thinks the refs are biased towards Wigan...

Leeds player committed to tackle - penalty to Wigan.

Wigan player committed to challenge in cup - Sin bin.
Wigan player tackles Leeds player with ball - Sin bin.

You do know that taking a kicker out late AND high whilst making no attempt at the ball is an automatic yellow don't you?

It indeed should have been a penalty further back and on one of your other two comments re the CC game I also agree, you were very hard done by and it was a poor call.

But that is how it goes, had Richards kicked the penalty that he was lucky to get at the point he did and not 20 metres further back, then we would have been even more upset. Opinions are opinions and we all have them!

Alibert puts his hand to his earpiece and says 'Phi' before he can get the name out Bentham is instructing him of the decision. 'Tackle late ..... where?' asks Alibert.

The fact Bentham instructs Alibert precisely to the point the kick is to be taken from proves he was ruling on the Donald obstruction on Richards (which ironically Alibert had got right IMO before being talked out of it.)

Earlier in the game after the Sinfield challenge on Fielden (nice to see Stuey still throwing the ball away in order to fight, old habits obviously die hard) Alibert had asked Bentham for the mark for the penalty.

I think Alibert was going to ask Bentham either way and I suspect most, if not all referees, would have done the same.



One or two offences doesn't really matter. I doubt there is a rule that says in such an instance the referee has to go back to the first one, he's going to give the penalty to the best advantage of the non offending team and I have no problem with that. I agree that Donald's challenge was never a penalty but that's not how the linesman or the video referee saw it.

The decision that got me was when Leeds conceded a drop out when the Wigan player clearly knocked the ball forward first. The video referee could and should have been consulted then, IMO.