I don’t think there’s need to fly into panic mode, the team had a stinker - it happens. Saints had an absolute mare in 2019 (very similar to our performance) they soon got over it. Friday is massive as it will tell us a lot about this side and any chances for the rest of the season.

Agreed no panic, just an observation of the pack. Let's hope we bounce back with a good win.

That was very disappointing and a year too soon. In our team there were:
4 CC Winners
2 WCC Winners
3 GF Winners
9 International players
1 State of Origin Winner
2 players with 10 NRL Seasons

Teams who go to Wembley normally have a dip two weeks later.

My assessment as a Wigan fan. I brought two mates with me, one a big both codes rugby fan who doesn't follow a team, and one who is a football fan who had never been to a rugby game before. They both very much enjoyed the day. It's interesting to me that while, as rugby league fans, we are seemingly all worrying about the optics of empty seats and what we need to do to fill the stadium and get a better atmosphere, their attitude was very positive. They thought the crowd was really impressive and the sense of occasion was very much part of the day for them. My football fan mate was very pleased that he could have a pint in his seat, and was pleasantly surprised that we had Warrington fans sat right in front of us, with no worries over segregation.

To the match itself, I think Burgess was probably right to focus on the fact that 12 of the 17 had not played in finals before. Wigan only had two where that was the case and I really thought it showed. I had a good chat with one of the Warrington fans at half-time and we both agreed that the big game experience was making a difference. The interesting there to me is that I think it was the players with finals experience that suffered. I wonder if they felt too much pressure to stand up and be the leaders today, rather than just playing their usual games. Williams, Powell and King all had unusually poor games. Warrington's last tackle options were poorer than usual, both in choice and execution. But the biggest factor, as several have mentioned, was in the forwards. Wigan got on top early there and never let go. Thompson and Cooper looked every inch the England veterans that they are and Vaughan and Harrison, both of whom I rate highly, looked as poor as I have seen them this season. Philbin was missed. He has looked much more like the player of 2019 this year, and his aggression may have helped out there.
French and Field had the Warrington defence rattled a lot of the time, hence why King shot out of the line when he shouldn't. They say you have to lose one to win one, and I wonder if this was your lose one. I still feel the Grand Final is going to be any two of Wigan, Warrington and Saints and it could easily go differently then. As for the officiating, I didn't have a problem with most of it, barring the obvious incredulity at the harsh yellow cards and the long deliberations over the French double movement. Ball carrying arm clearly hit the deck while the tackle was effected, and there was a clear second movement to lift the arm and ground the bball over the line. Not sure why it needed all that time, especially after being sent up as a no-try.
Thanks to the Warrington fan sat in front of me for welcoming my mate to his first rugby match and sportingly offering us a handshake at full-time. Rugby league fans are truly the best,

Great post.

Lose one to win one? We are owed a few GF successes then

On the double movement; if I'm not mistaken you are allowed to move your arm if you are still moving, a point that seems to be being overlooked. Promoting the ball only comes into play when your momentum is stopped. French said he thought it was a try because he was still moving and there's an argument to say he's right. Not that it mattered in the end, of course.

One of the clearest double movements you’ll ever see.

I thought the delay was working out how to restart the game - i.e) double movement or knock on. Maybe I was being generous.

Firstly a caveat: I'm not arguing it was a try or that it wasn't a double movement. For clarity, my first instinct was always double movement and I called it as such while watching the game. However...

We often hear that a tackle is complete when the ball carrying arm hits the ground but this isn't true. A tackle isn't complete until momentum stops. No one would claim that the tackle was complete at the point the ball carrying arm hits the floor if the player then slides over the line. In the French example, the player is still moving at the point his arm hits the floor and is still moving when he starts to move his arm. Both allowable under the rules. At the point he grounds it he has stopped moving so it depends if you regard the arm movement as during 'live play' or not.

From the BBC website (couldn't find the RFL rule explanation):

However, if the player is in the process of being tackled and the ball has not been grounded before the try line, then they can make a second movement for the score.

I'm not making a judgement either way but it probably isn't as clear cut as it would seem if you apply the incorrect "tackle complete when the ball carrying arm hits the ground".

The ball was initially grounded 5 yards from the line….my only surprise is Wiganer Liam Moore didn’t give that itself as a try a la Wardle in the WCC.

Caveat - I know we was not robbed. Moore also responsible for both shocking yellow cards.

Not if he was still moving, which he was



Obviously it doesn't matter either way but I thought it interesting that we all (myself included) seem to think the "tackle complete when the ball carrying arm hits the ground" is cut and dried when, of course, it isn't.

TBH i thought it was a try at the time as French was still (just about) moving as he reached out to put the ball down. Those can easily go both ways.

As I say, French himself thought it was a try which is how I came to look at it again. I initially just went with the general consensus of "tackle complete etc." Looking at the rules, though, he probably has an argument (not that he was particularly bothered either way in the end of course)

Here’s one for you. If Eckersley fails to ground the ball then Wigan get a penalty try (kick from in front of the post) and King is sin binned for a professional foul. Wigan in theory were penalised twice and did not commit an offence

The rules https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 0Rules.pdf Page 23 and 24 When tackled: 2. (A) player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground. - this happened When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try. - so did this If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed. - the tackle was completed under 2 (A) Correct decision.

The rules https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 0Rules.pdf Page 23 and 24 When tackled: 2. (A) player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground. - this happened When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try. - so did this If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed. - the tackle was completed under 2 (A) Correct decision.

Quote ="Wires71"The rules https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 0Rules.pdf Page 23 and 24 When tackled: 2. (A) player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground. - this happened When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try. - so did this If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed. - the tackle was completed under 2 (A) Correct decision.'" Well you say that but if momentum wasn't stopped he wasn't tackled as seen when a player slides over the line after being tackled short of the line. The decision (according to those rules) depends on whether you think he was still moving when his arm hits the ground (he was) and therefore the last paragraph comes into play. If he hasn't been stopped, he hasn't been tackled even if his arm hits the ground. This is a purely academic discussion btw as I'm happy with the decision.

Quote ="Wires71"The rules https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 0Rules.pdf Page 23 and 24 When tackled: 2. (A) player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground. - this happened When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try. - so did this If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed. - the tackle was completed under 2 (A) Correct decision.'" Well you say that but if momentum wasn't stopped he wasn't tackled as seen when a player slides over the line after being tackled short of the line. The decision (according to those rules) depends on whether you think he was still moving when his arm hits the ground (he was) and therefore the last paragraph comes into play. If he hasn't been stopped, he hasn't been tackled even if his arm hits the ground. This is a purely academic discussion btw as I'm happy with the decision.

Yeah I know, it's academic. The only reference to "momentum" that I can find as relevant is

Sliding try (c) a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the
opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball
even if the ball has first touched the ground in the
field of play but provided that when the ball
crosses the goal line the player is not in touch or
touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

- this did not occur in my opinion.


I'm glad it wasn't given as it kept the game alive, albeit just, into half time.

Again, I'd probably say that isn't conclusive looking at the wording of that ruling. Nowhere does it say that the whole of the body needs to be over the line, or even which parts need to be over the line and, given his hand is part of his body (or at least it was the last time I looked! Haha) then I'd say there was some grounds for applying the rule in this instance. That said, I do accept that the ruling was more specifically meant for the typical "wet weather" type slide.

Interesting how badly worded some of these rules are though. They are definitely, shall we say, "open to interpretation".

I know what you mean on it not being given. I think it would have been game over had it stood.

And try to explain them to someone new to the sport!

RL is a simple sport, but putting complicated rules and interpretations in place makes its administrators feel very important.....I can see no other reason for it tbh!

I think there's quite a few overcomplications been introduced over recent years. The biggest one being the sending up of a try/no try. Why overcomplicate it? As a ref you've either seen it or you haven't. If they haven't why add a guess into the equation? Utter madness!

i think there is a very simple explanation to the double movement.

if a player is tackled and the ball carry arm hits the floor, its only a try if momentum carries that player over the line WITHOUT having to extend the ball carrying arm over the line.

Everyone is dissecting what went wrong, but what is criminal, is putting ourselves in a position of dis’s advantage before we had even kicked off!

The decision to play an unfit Fitzgibbon was unforgiving.
He stank the place out.
To play him above one or our fit young forwards!

If you’re not 100% Wembley will always find you out.

It’s a very good point. Maybe that’s a learning curve for Burgess - no matter how good the player and how integral he is to your side if he’s not fully fit you don’t play them. Burgess knew he wasn’t fully fit and threw the dice, it didn’t work.

That's what we generally accept the rule to be but if you look at the wording above there is no mention of moving the arm.