We actually had 9 players out if you include injuries - we just rested 5.

Nothing to do with "disrespect".

Just a decision that backfired on Wane. Badly. Serves him right, and he'll know that.

The real disrespect is by those who attribute Widnes' win solely to Wane's dumb (with hindsight) decision, IMO. The game still had to be won.

Same as ours did against HKR - went into the game with ten of the first team squad injured, two out on season-long loan and two more injured early doors in the match. Yet we won. I suspect for the same sort of reasons that Widnes did.

Bollox to "disrespect" - lets show respect where its due?

As others have said it's not disrespect. If you'd heard Wane's comments before the game he certainly wasn't taking Widnes lightly. He wasn't 'disrespecting' Widnes but putting faith in the players that he picked.

Given that Wigan were 18 points up at one point and only lost by a late drop goal and missed a potential game winning penalty he was certainly right to think that the team he put out was capable of a win. The issue for Wigan wasn't a lack of ability from the players on the field it was the fact that every time we went a couple of tries up our discipline suddenly became dreadful and they were piggy backed up the field with consecutive penalties.
Phil Clarke loves to bang on about how costly back to back penalties can be and Wigan were guilty of that time and time again and were making it much easier for Widnes than it should have been. The players should take the blame for the performance (the senior players as they were letting the team down most) rather than Shaun Wane.

The bottom line for Wigan is that quite a few young players have to step up this year to replace the likes of Carmont, Finch and Leuluai. I'm not sure a steady approach to bringing young players through is going to help too much in the long run, so I don't blame the coach for wanting to find out how the youngsters cope as quickly as possible.

Actually I've since been on and you're right there are some posts which say that. I disagree with them, mind.

Cherry Pie talks sense IMO. And interesting (for an outsider) assessment on what went wrong. On reflection, scratch my comment about it being a dumb decision.

CP - are you a "Simon's Cat" fan too? I've GOT Simon's Cat - although its called Zac.

Thanks! Not many other Wigan fans seem to agree with me though!

And yes, Simon's Cat is rather brilliant. Never would have found it funny before I had to look after my friends cat once; then it all made sense.

It's not what people say it's what they do !

Words are cheap.

Apparently on GMR, Wane said he "might do the same" cock- up against London as he did Sunday, playing too many youngsters. So yes, he did take Widnes lightly.

RFL fix? wouldnt suprise me.

Obviously would suprise everybody. Would a team wanting to lose go up 36-18 in the second half? Hate how much this sort of thing has been said, give Widnes some credit!

Talking of disrespect, ignore Wigan and watch the Leeds game this weekend.Ryan Bailey shoves the referee with both hands; Gareth Hock grabbed a ref's arm once and almost got the guillotine for it.

Oh dear. Silverwood was in the way of the defensive line close to the try line. In the Hock case IIRC it was after Wigan had conceded a try and Ian Smith was walking away when Hock lost it and pulled him back.
But don't worry about little things like facts when Ryan Bailey's involved.

It's so obvious that I don't know why anyone hasn't brought it up before!

RFL: Right Wigan, we want you to lose this week, because it will make a good story. So don't try as hard. What? What's in it for you? You do as your told. Right, get on with it.

Players: Right away sir!

Half time: Right, good first half, no one has twigged. We want you to go three tries up, and then squander the lead. Make it look convincing, we don't want any loose ends!

Players: OK, this makes perfect sense and I certainly don't mind match fixing for no benefit to me personally whatsoever.

If only you hadn't come along and exposed this trickery!

Must be mistaken identity, Mr Bailey wouldnt ever do a dis-service to the game, you need to check the vt.

Its a pleasure to read the balanced view of things on here, as the Wigan board is full of ranting loonies at the moment. I have no problem with the choice of team, it was a team that should have won, if it had we would have been bragging about our strength in depth. Indeed we should brag about it. No one can deny it was a close game, which we could have won, and it gave valuble experience to young players. Was it too much of a change, well the result says so, but will these players be better losing in a game like this, than being brought into a playoff game and losing there. This was a game about our future, not our past.

Every credit to Widnes for wanting the win more, and getting it.

Great post...

I did post about a lot of your fans loving the squad when it was first put up,
Going on about the young talent, the amount of local boys etc only for them to be back on after the result totally ripping it to shreds!



So it's good to see a post of this nature...



Cheers

Oh dear - potentially two for the price of one.

Have a look at the incident and decide exactly who did what that was so terribly wrong: [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxxpgZOHNk&feature=youtu.be&t=1m47s[/url

Didn't see anything particularly wrong when watching the game Friday night, but then I haven't looked at the different angles or was looking for them like the panel will have done. Then again I'm not the one that'll need convincing there was anything in either of them.

The disciplinary seem to have tighter up a lot this season and I can't remember many (if at all) getting off when they're up before the beak.

Do you mean the bit where first Brent Webb, and then Ryan Bailey, clearly push Silverwood? This being "deliberate physical contact with a match official", described as being a grade D-E offence in the On Field Compliance Sentencing Guidelines from 2010.

Pro tip: when claiming innocence, try not to produce evidence that demonstrates guilt



Whether you or I think that particular incident is 'so terribly wrong' or not isn't important - there are good reasons why players don't have the right to push the referee around, no matter where they're stood.

On the issue of respect, I wonder if there'll be anything more about the incident with Ganson and the physio? I didn't hear what was said, but Ganson clearly took exception to it and gave the physio in question a dressing down.

Ganson? Respect?

If you think that constitutes "pushing the referee around" then you've clearly got a different definition to me.

On both occasions the players were trying to get to where they needed to be in the defensive line, the contact was momentary and not even strong enough to cause Silverwood to go off balance. It's nothing like the Hock case where he physically grabbed Ian Smith after play had been stopped IIRC.

From memory, I don't recall Silverwood passing comment about the contact to either player at the time, although he did talk to Bailey about "waving his arms around" when the player went to remonstrate about him being in the way after the try was scored.

Obviously a slow week for the video review panel. If that constitutes a three game ban then the disciplinary process is a farce.

My definition is, basically, the player physically pushing the referee. I don't know what your definition would be of, if it didn't involve that.



I understand your objection: you think that, because the referee was stood between Bailey/Webb and where they wanted to be, the player has a right to physically move the referee out of the way. I'm sure that you supporting the team for which those players play has nothing to do with your opinion. I don't think it matters that Silverwood doesn't go off-balance. I don't even think it matters that the push changed Silverwood's position or the course of his movement (which it certainly appeared to, from the video). I suspect the disciplinary panel don't think it matters, either.

I expect the disciplinary panel do think that it matters that there may have been no obvious intent to intimidate or hurt the referee, and an element of not being able to change their own direction, which is why it's currently a grade C, and not D-F, as the sentencing guidelines would suggest.



It's [idifferent[/i to that case, but it's [ilike[/i it in that the players deliberately make physical contact with the referee - which is the description of the offence. Also, Hock's grab at Ian Smith didn't cause him to go off-balance, so it's like it that way, too





That counts for nothing. I don't remember Alibert making a big deal about Chris Bridge's elbow to Ben Jeffries' chest, but the disciplinary panel still thought he had something to answer for.

Yet earlier silverwoods poor positioning saw two warrington players barge into him. He got himself into poor positions all night

I guess it's the thin end of the wedge - they'll want to send a strong message out about respecting the official; for me, no player should be putting their hands on him and that includes Lee Briers little pats on the back when he's conned them into yet another penalty.