Who made this decision?

To me this was the turning point in the game.

I was so surprised this decision was made. I know it was a final but it's not often I've seen Wane advocate going for two.

Even more baffling was that it was only to put us 4 points in front. Knowing Leeds have a kicker like Sinfield if they scored a try, which was likely, it would have been a waste of our penalty and a bad decision.

Straight after this when Leeds went down our end they went and scored the winning try - typical!

I thought we had momentum at the time of the penalty and had we run it was confident we'd have scored. As it was, this decision probably cost us the game.

Ive already pointed this out. It was the dumbest decision ive ever seen. It was like we thought we could just close the game out with a 4 point lead when what we should of done was put it in the corner and gone for broke. Even if we hadn't scored Leeds would of had to bring the ball out from their own line and at that point they looked totally shot down the middle. That lost us the game IMO.

Almost as good as clubbs kick. Dont get me wrong, he isnt a kicker in a month of sundays so it aint his fault nut locky was stood right next to him and did nowt

Yet it was still probably on par with any kicks Matty Smith came up with in the game!

Not to mention our 5th tackle kicks in the first half. Was it 3 times we went to the right and Tomkins put in a weird grubber kick. It was like we had no half backs on the pitch

Called it at the time - 2 point lead or 4 point lead, what's the difference? Leeds looked exhausted, bang it in the corner and crank the pressure on them. As it was we gave them a rest and got the ball back deep in our half. Major dropped bollock I'd say.

Went mad and my words at the time came true- 'this will be the turning point and Leeds will win by 2'.

Never, ever, ever give territory away in a Grand Final and certainly don't give momentum away. We gave them the game and it hurts more then last year.

Crazy decision. A few of us Leeds fans have already commented on it....you gave us a breather when we were really on the ropes. Six points might have been too much to get up from; instead just 2 meant all Leeds had to do was take the breather and to score the one converted try. And so it proved.

Later on Leeds had option to kick for 2 when winning and make it 4 point lead but they knew it was pointless. There is very little difference between a 2 point lead and a 4 point lead in this game. The difference is we lacked game management and Leeds had it in abundance.

The only difference is that it gives you leeway to give a penalty near your line but you should be confident in your discipline anyway.

Unless you're four in front (or 10 and possibly 16) I don't ever see the point in going over the two. You give away territory and need to be very good on the next set to win that back.

When Saints went for two when they had us on the ropes in 2011 I breathed a sigh of relief as even though we would fall behind, the breather and field position it'd give us after were crucial.

My mind shot straight back to that decision when I saw Wigan opt for the 2 tonight. I was delighted Leeds didn't take the same option later on in the game. We didn't extend our lead but by the end of that set Wigan started it 3m from their own line.

Could not agree more. Said straight away what a awful call that was

Not sure who made the call or the logic behind it, if it was to get a 6 point lead maybe but 4 ?? at the time i said kick it to the corner to keep the pressure on big mistake which totally changed the flow of the game not a mistake Leeds made near the end.

I didn't think it was an awful call at the time.I personally wanted us to go for the try but there was plenty of Wigan fans in the crowd holding up 2 fingers wanting the kick.The Leeds one was also a big call and I imagine plenty of Leeds fans wanted to take the 2,had we gone and scored a try and won by 2 I'm sure they would all be saying that was an awful call.

People in the crowd always have this strange automatic leaning towards going for the two and I think they just like sticking the two fingers up and doing the shout.

I was ranting in the stand at the end of the game that just because the crowd starts shouting for two the players shouldn't be listening to them. Id like to know who made the call ultimately (Wane or Lockers I presume) because whoever it was cost us big time.

Leeds were rocking and we let them off the ropes and have them a free hit. As long as we learn from it then at least we can hopefully use it as a positive in the future.

Like many others I called it at the time and thought it could turn the game, which turned out to be correct, unfortunately.

With the momentum we had we had every chance of scoring and going 6-8 points in front. Even if we hadn't scored we may have got a repeat set (or more) and wore Leeds down even further. And even if that hadn't happened they'd have been fighting to get out of their own half. It's a no-brainer!

It was a stupid call and I didn't see the point in going for the 2. I said straight away they get a try with sinfield kicking they win the game and that's exactly what happened.

At that point in the game we had them on the rack and I'm confident we could have scored or atleast tried for a repeat/keep them down that end for another go. Instead we give them a breather and a chance to collect themselves.

As much as I'd like to think that video ref cost us that game, the decision to take the 2 was a big turning point.

Brisbane did it last week and it bit them on the and you did it last night. Bizarre call.

Fair enough, go for two if you're two points down to square it up or twelve points up to make it a three try game, but Leeds needed to score a try at two points down and still needed to score a try at four points down. It changed nowt.

I do think to was the turning point.

The only thing it changes is that it takes the opportunity away from the opposition to kick a penalty to level the scores but we should back our discipline to do that.

It'll haunt me for years that call. I've got a text I sent on my phone as we lined the kick up which reads (exactly)- 'that will turn the game, Leeds to win by 2'. If only I could predict the results when I've got a bet on!!

It also changes the end of the field you play in, ie. your own instead of theirs, all for a measly 2 points.

We did the same at Headingley in the league game, took the lead, went back down their end, got a penalty and IIRC dropped the kick off and didn't see the ball again for the next 20 mins.
It was a bad decision at Headingley and it was even worse at Old Trafford.

Exactly. Worst case scenario from us kicking to touch would have been us dropping the ball ten metres from their line on the first tackle.

At least we'd have been playing at their end.

I said a couple of weeks ago there have been three major issues this season: Ill discipline, poor game management and an inability to turn pressure into points. The discipline improved markedly during the 2nd half of the season but the latter two remained thorns in our side throughout, costing us several big games, including Saturday night. We score plenty of tries from deep and from kicks, but look clueless when we get a set in the opposition 20 and time and time again we take the wrong option when we get kickable penalties. The argument is always you should take points when they're on offer in a big game but as others have mentioned, unless your making a 6 point lead 8 or a 12 point lead 14, there's really no point and you're then risking a mistake bringing the ball away from your own half.

Taking the two to go 4 points ahead takes a penalty for them out of the equation. It means we can defend on our line and not have to worry about giving away penalties, because they will not kick. By going 4 points up we were backing our own defence.

I'm not saying I agree with it, because it was proved wrong, but that is the thinking.

I was shocked when you went for 2. You was on the front foot and playing some brilliant rugby. Further more Leeds' tough season looked to be catching up with them plus an extra 2 points wouldn't have had a big enough impact anyway.

You made one mistake on game management. Sinfield made none. Thats the difference.