Have you read this thread?

Thought not

Lima caught the ball in line with Mossop, because they were both running forward. I thought that was how the momentum rule worked. But anyway, like I said it didn't affect the try, which is something you keep ignoring. The incorrect PTB, on the other hand, was a clear case of an incorrect call affecting the game.


You keep coming up with these amazing retorts. Let me try one: You're wrong! Now you post back saying you're right...


You do know that players have been wearing squad numbers that don't always relate to their field position for years, don't you? RL knowledge and all that. But yeah, if I mistook McGuire for Buderus then any argument I make in the future regarding the rules of Rugby League will be invalid, right? That makes sense.

I've read it trust me, it's littered with bitterness from Saints and Warrington fans, the usual suspect to boot as well.

I absolutely love it when Wigan win and it really gets up other fans noses, you being one of them.

Wigan deserved to win, I'm not bitter you don't even know me.



Where are these posts that prove Wire and Saints fans are more bitter than any others?? After all there must be a lot for the thread to be "littered" with them.

That's brilliant - yeah unless you're a Leeds fan you'd never guess that one of the greatest hookers ever to play the game would have no 9 on the back of his shirt

Should never have been a try if he`s throwing meters at people, not a good advert for Wigan education are you?

When did this "momentum rule" come into force?

Then you clearly dont understand 'the momentum rule' probably because it doesnt exist. Its clear you dont understand the reasons why the VR isnt used for forward passes and its clear you dont understand the affect of momentum on the forward pass rule, but you still persist in arguing that a pass described by the media as [iThe Lee Mossop pass that gave Lima the momentum for his second try was clearly forward, [/iwasnt. Why?
You are embarrasing yourself here. You would have to be an absolute moron to be arguing that an incorrect forward pass decision that was the final pass ten yars out and leading to a try wasnt affected by the referee's decision, but that an (possible) incorrect play the ball (what criteria for a play the ball do you think Ablett didnt meet? he certainly regained his feet, he puts the ball down and rolls it back and makes an attempt to touch the ball with his foot) 2 tackles before a try on the other side of the field is [ia clear case of an incorrect call affecting the game[/i. Oh thats what you have done!
It was wrong, im really not sure what else you want me to say. This was a situation described by the media as [ithe kick that led directly to Leuluai's clincher equally clearly went into touch off the legs of Charnley, rather than the body of Rob Burrow.[/i.
Yes, but 'squad numbers' would be the ones outside the first 17. When Danny Mcguire wears the number 9 shirt, or Danny Buderus wears a number 6 let me know and you wont look quite so stupid. However i expect Danny Mcguire will wear the number 9 shirt in the same game Ryan Bailey wears the number 1 and Shergar is interchanging at 8 with Lord Lucan.

Actually, I said it was one of the most borderline examples of a forward pass I'd seen and that given video footage is unreliable it's somewhat silly of you to form an opinion that you are 100% certain of using video footage as a basis. But hey, if the media say it was forward it must be.


Is the froth from your mouth dripping onto your keyboard or something? I assume that you're trying to say the forward pass affected the try and are just having a communication melt-down. If that's the case then I disagree, the pass was so borderline that the try would have been scored either way. Of course it's conjecture from both of us but I'm sure you'll insist you are factually 100% correct as indicated by your crystal ball (which, incidentally, I've hear they still use as a means of local authority governance round your way). My opinion, however, is based on the way Lima simply swatted opposition players away with ease when they really had a very good opportunity to tackle him. Nothing to do with the pass, just very poor tackling.


He was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it. It wasn't a correct PTB by any definition. You know the difference between RL and RU don't you?


Oh the media said did they? Well, perhaps if you weren't so unfamiliar with Rugby League you could rely on your own knowledge and not the media. Here's a helpful pointer:

[i[u9 Touch & Touch InGoal[/u
7. In all aspects of general play, a player who does not deliberately play at the ball (eg. ricochet or rebound) will not be disadvantaged by a consequent restart of play when the ball has gone dead or into touch.[/i


Ha ha, you really are putting a lot of effort into this sidetracking attempt aren't you? But just to put this to bed once and for all, what position did Tommy L play on Sat and what number did he have on his back? Now I predict that you'll either a) answer correctly and demonstrate my point quite nicely, or b) ignore the question which would indicate, using your own logic, that you have no Rugby League knowledge. So which is it?

And as i explained, there are reasons why the VR isnt used, reasons not applicable in this case. You then explained your misunderstanding of momentum. It wasnt boderline. It wasnt even close. It was clearly forwa

I dont disagree it was poor tackling. It doesnt affect the fact it was a forward pass and led directly to a try. By any logic this had more of an affect than an (possible) incorrect play the ball 2 tackles before a try was scored.

No he didnt. What criteria specifically for a play the ball wasnt met? As in what actually happened.

He played at the ball in exactly the same way Burrow did. Everybody else has seemed to understand this.

What number did Mr Mcilorum wear? It doesnt alter the fact had your bias not affected your view you would have easily recognised one of the most famous number 9's in the world, wearing number 9.

Froth again?

An incorrect PTB that gave a clear advantage to break the unset defensive line and gain about 30 undeserved metres, as opposed to an alleged marginally forward pass to Lima who physically destroyed your "defensive" (and I use the term loosely) line.


He got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards. Clear incorrect PTB, or do you have some evidence to show him on 2 feet? Answer: no you don't. By claiming that was a correct PTB you are demonstrating even more clearly your lack of knowledge about the game.


Everyone except, well, anyone who disagrees with you, including, most importantly, the officials. I'm not even convinced you knew that particular part of the laws since you kept referring to the ball having hit Charnley last.


So just to clarify, our hooker wore 7, our scrum half wore 17, a winger wore 25 and a centre wore 12, a second-rower wore 16 and a prop wore 15, just like they always do. On your team you had a winger wearing 23, and centres wearing 19 and 12, whilst your loose forward wore 20 and your second-rowers wore 11 and 3. Getting the picture now. Your little outburst and your belief that shirt numbers and positions match like they did 25 years ago seems all the more silly now. Not only don't you realise players wear their squad number, you don't even realise your own team do it. Do you actually watch any rugby, let alone Leeds?

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Froth again? An incorrect PTB that gave a clear advantage to break the unset defensive line and gain about 30 undeserved metres, as opposed to an alleged marginally forward pass to Lima who physically destroyed your "defensive" (and I use the term loosely) line.'" Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? Quote He got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards. Clear incorrect PTB, or do you have some evidence to show him on 2 feet? Answer: no you don't. By claiming that was a correct PTB you are demonstrating even more clearly your lack of knowledge about the game.'" No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from? Can i ask why your idea of what he does has changed from [iHe was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it[/i to [iHe got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards[/i? Quote Everyone except, well, anyone who disagrees with you, including, most importantly, the officials. I'm not even convinced you knew that particular part of the laws since you kept referring to the ball having hit Charnley last. '" Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. Quote So just to clarify, our hooker wore 7, our scrum half wore 17, a winger wore 25 and a centre wore 12, a second-rower wore 16 and a prop wore 15, just like they always do. On your team you had a winger wearing 23, and centres wearing 19 and 12, whilst your loose forward wore 20 and your second-rowers wore 11 and 3. Getting the picture now. Your little outburst and your belief that shirt numbers and positions match like they did 25 years ago seems all the more silly now. Not only don't you realise players wear their squad number, you don't even realise your own team do it. Do you actually watch any rugby, let alone Leeds? '" This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Froth again? An incorrect PTB that gave a clear advantage to break the unset defensive line and gain about 30 undeserved metres, as opposed to an alleged marginally forward pass to Lima who physically destroyed your "defensive" (and I use the term loosely) line.'" Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? Quote He got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards. Clear incorrect PTB, or do you have some evidence to show him on 2 feet? Answer: no you don't. By claiming that was a correct PTB you are demonstrating even more clearly your lack of knowledge about the game.'" No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from? Can i ask why your idea of what he does has changed from [iHe was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it[/i to [iHe got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards[/i? Quote Everyone except, well, anyone who disagrees with you, including, most importantly, the officials. I'm not even convinced you knew that particular part of the laws since you kept referring to the ball having hit Charnley last. '" Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. Quote So just to clarify, our hooker wore 7, our scrum half wore 17, a winger wore 25 and a centre wore 12, a second-rower wore 16 and a prop wore 15, just like they always do. On your team you had a winger wearing 23, and centres wearing 19 and 12, whilst your loose forward wore 20 and your second-rowers wore 11 and 3. Getting the picture now. Your little outburst and your belief that shirt numbers and positions match like they did 25 years ago seems all the more silly now. Not only don't you realise players wear their squad number, you don't even realise your own team do it. Do you actually watch any rugby, let alone Leeds? '" This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? '" You got both. Quote No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from?'" You know, I honestly didn't think you were stupid enough to maintain this silly claim. You're making it way to easy mate. Quote Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. '" Don't forget the officials. Quote I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. '" Only Burrow played at it, hence the Wigan scrum. That's how these things work. Quote This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.'" We seem to be going full circle - I'm not familiar with the Leeds squad numbers. You responded by saying it was obviously Buderus as he was the hooker and had 9 on. I pointed out that players wear squad numbers these days. Simple. The fact that you didn't know this--even about your own team--is hugely embarrassing for you.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? '" You got both. Quote No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from?'" You know, I honestly didn't think you were stupid enough to maintain this silly claim. You're making it way to easy mate. Quote Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. '" Don't forget the officials. Quote I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. '" Only Burrow played at it, hence the Wigan scrum. That's how these things work. Quote This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.'" We seem to be going full circle - I'm not familiar with the Leeds squad numbers. You responded by saying it was obviously Buderus as he was the hooker and had 9 on. I pointed out that players wear squad numbers these days. Simple. The fact that you didn't know this--even about your own team--is hugely embarrassing for you.

Fair enough.

Yes, it does carry on you know. I put the video on there to show that. Nice bit of interference there aswell. Something you said didnt happen, then you have posted a picture of it happening. That must be hugely embarrassing for you.

You have also failed to answer why your idea of what he does has changed from [iHe was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it[/i to [iHe got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards?[/i

Ah so up until i pointed it out to you, you were under the strange misaprehension that Danny Mcguire wore the number 9 and one of the most famous hookers in the world wore number 6. This must be hugely embarrassing for you.

Could i ask why you thought Danny Mcguire wore the number 9?

You're reaching new levels of childishness now.


Are you claiming that Ablett goes on to regain both feet, then places the ball on the ground in order to make it a correct PTB? Beware that if you do make this claim I'll be forced to embarrass you again by showing clearly that this does not happen. He places the ball on the ground whilst he is on one knee, as can be seen.


He didn't interfere. There was nothing preventing Ablett from regaining his feet other than his own desire to cheat.


When a player dives forward onto the floor over the ball they tend to be horizontal, but that's largely irrelevant, since both are incorrect PTBs. Take your pick.




Why would I be embarrassed that I mistook 2 opposition players from the same team. You appear to want to make a big deal of such a non issue. Distraction is such a tell-tale sign that you have lost the argument you know.


I simply wasn't paying attention. Now could I ask why you thought the Leeds first team wore 1-17?

For me the game was spoiled by 4 decisions by Bentham and the other officials:-

1. The tackle on Delaney in the first half which was not deemed dangerous, his feet were clearly lifted above his head.
2. The tackle which took Jones-Bishop into touch, he clearly had both feet lifted off the floor.
3. The forward pass for Lima's 2nd try though difficult to pick up when at speed and both players stood close together, plus Bentham was stood 10m in front so difficult for him to see from that angle and Hicks looked unsighted on the far side, don't know about Childs. Maybe we need to go to the video ref on these and if inconclusive, benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.
4. The decision on who knocked the ball out at such a crucial time late in the 2nd half should have gone to the video ref for clarification even if Hicks thought he was sure, for me Charnley was looking to get hold of the ball and deemed to play it.

All these went against Leeds and watching it as a neutral I thought it spoiled the game as a whole, I wasn't bothered who won as long as it was a good game to watch and it could have been a great game if those poor decisions weren't made, Wigan probably would still have shaded it.

As whenever Rovers are playing I don't mind losing as long it's not to controversial and incorrect decisions, but that's life.

You took your time. Usually I only manage a few posts before you start trying to discourage me from responding.

The trouble with this is you're clearly only bothered by supposedly poor decisions that went against Leeds and not those that went against Wigan. As such it just comes across as "I wanted Leeds to win and they didn't so I'm bitter."

I thought this was by far the worst and has nothing to do with who was playing who.

If Mcguire and Bailey had done this to Tompkins, Wigan fans (and quite a few others) would be calling for a public hanging. A very poor decision, and a failure to protect a players safety.

Or maybe as a nuetral he called what he saw, and simply not agreeing with you simply means he believes you to be wrong.

Your 'anyone who disagrees with me is bitter and hates wigan' arrgument is as self-fulfilling as it is pathetic. Especially as he states he wasnt bothered who won.

I wasn't bothered who won , it was a forward pass , tough W1g4n won

Noticably, you've only selected decisions in Wigan's favour.
- 2 of Leeds' tries were arguably forward passes.
- Doubt about the grounding of Hall's try.
- The very questionable play-the-ball by Ablett in the lead-up to BJB's try.
And what about incidents such as Bailey's late challenge on Tomkins, McGuire giving Charnley a facial after Hall's try, JJB's grapple, Leuluai's brain fart against Lima, etc.

It's swings and roundabouts. We'd all love it if every decision was 100% correct, but it's never going to happen. Even if every incorrect decision was reversed you'd have had a different game but Wigan still might have won - and based on their fantastic defensive performance and ability to score tries, probably would have.

It's the first time I've heard of most of these things to be honest. Leuluai's brainfart against Lima was penalised, what is your problem?

For balance, I do remember thinking at the time that Ablett hadn't played the ball correctly, and there was a knock-on by Leeds that was waved play-on by the ref at some point in the second half IIRC.

That said it wasn't just a case of 'swings and roundabouts', and Wigan had more than their fair share of luck on the day. Sometimes these things just go against you. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that Leeds were in any way robbed. However, given that Leeds were so well and truly written off prior to the game it is pleasing that most will remember it as being a close final with several controversial incidents being seen to decide the outcome rather than it being a complete whitewash by the all-conquering Wigan side we keep hearing about.