First Mathers knocked on, even though it then hit his thigh and arguably went backwards. Then Riley seemed to go for the ball with his foot and didn't connect thus fouling Farrell in the process?

Not a penalty try but surely Wigan's ball?

I can understand the ref messing up but this is the vid ref with technology in front of him?

We'd just made it 16-16 all and the momentum going our way, a set of 6 on their line could have changed the course of the game.

Losing possession ,composure and not enough straight hard running generally through the game "especially when Riddell was off the pitch" changed the course of it .

That was the course of the game, I'm on about changing it.

You played the advantage.
I dont necessarily agree with it but that's the ruling

I thought liam farrel should have been in the starting line up, he looks like he's going to be very good player.

What advantage? We never held the ball?

no the ref played the advantage, none was coming as we didnt regain possession, its like a double knock on, so should have been Wigan scrum

We went 10 yards n almost scored. That was the advantage.

Correct decision

we didnt go 10 yards the ball travelled 10 yards but we didnt have it

We dnt have too. We knocked on over the line which was over the advantage line. Correct call.

disgaree, we didnt have posession. But, I suppose its each to their own

AT no point did Wigan have advantage, if he collects the ball then knocks on, fair enough, but Rileys kick prevents that.

Had Richards kicked the ball forward instead of picking it up, but riley got there first, would we have gone back for the knock o from Mathers? No, it would have been play on.

Incorrect call, You have to regain posession before knocking on again for it to be deemed a knock on over the advantage line.
i.e If Farrell had picked it up and then knocked on it would have been the correct call, he never picked it up, he knocked on in the process of picking it up so no advantage.

HOWEVER

That is if the VR decided that Mathers knocked on in the 1st place.
If he deemed he didn't (Not seen the game on SKY so can't comment) then there was no advantage to be played and Farrell knocking on would have been correct call.

Again

Not seen it on SKY but not sure where this comes from?

Purely Hypothetical, no-one did kick the ball forward (Did they?).
If they had then fair enough, but they didn't? You have to regain posession from a knock on and get over the advantage line for it to be play on.

We didn't. it should have been a scrum "IF" he deemed Mathers had knocked on (Which I'm not sure he did deem he had done?).

Id call it an advantage anyway and still think it was the righy call. Had he knocked on at the side of mathers then yeah id say our ball.

Mathers DID knock on, he flicked the ball forward with his hands, the ball hit his thigh and went slighlty backwards. So if the vid ref deemed it no knock on, its another bad call.

He's very quickly turning into one. The academy at Wigan is amazing at the moment, it's churning out a host of top class prospects.

You can call it what you want and interpret it whatever way you want.

If the same thing happened in the middle of the field and Farrell tried to pick it up "Over" the advantage line & Knocked on they would come back for the 1st knock on.
It doesn't matter wether the knock on from the 2nd team 9i.e Wigan in this case) happend behind or in front of the advantage line. There is no advantage if he doesn't regather posession.

I still take you back to the VR deciding though If Mathers knocks on, If he didn't think he did (Which Again not having seen SKT replay I can't comment) then he is right to call Farrell's a knock on.

Never said he did or didn't (As I keep saying not seen it on Sky) but I said "If" the VR decided ha headn't knocked on then it's play on and the Farrell call was correct.

If he deemed he had knocked on then it's a wrong call because Farrell doesn't regain posession irrespective of whether it's before or over the advantage line, This is what I was commenting on and not the Mathers knock on call.

anyone else thought they were watching a certain ex player also called Farrell when he hit the line and spun for his line break ?

No!

Farell never touched the ball or had control over it as Riley kicked the ball and it went dead,so there was no advantage. The correct decision was either head and feed to Wigan or a Warrington drop out from under the posts, but it should not have been head and feed to Warrington.

That's how I saw it at the game but not watched it back to confirm my initial thoughts.

That's correct, Rogues. The ref ( VR) should have gone back to the 1st offence which was a definite Mathers knock on ( despite Warrington trolls claiming the ball went backwards). No advantage accrued because Faz never gained actual possession and I don't think the ball was kicked forward more than 10 yards which refutes the other argument about going beyond the advantage line.

There was another "bad knock on" missed by Silverwood after about 20 minutes. Wigan kicked through and a Warrington player ( Morley?) knocked on about 10 yards from his line. It was one of those where he was facing his line, but he definitely dragged/propelled the ball forward initially. I think Morley got a penalty for interference a couple of tackles later and from there Warrington scored their first try. Such is the influence on the game of refereeing errors! Let's hope they start to even themselves out in Wigan's favour in the next 2-3 months!