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!

irrelevant of the ref decision i think the key point to this was the poor decision by JT

He had broken through off IMO a forward pass (as i was bang in line with it), then blew the opportunity.

He had men inside and outside. My grandma could draw / beat richie mathers, so I can only assume he had a rush of blood and hence kicked so early

If he had drawn the man I am pretty sure it would have been a try, but he didn't and we all know what happened

Well for what its worth, i watched the game in a pub, stood chatting with two refs, one St helens based, and one from Leigh ( I will let you work out who).

they watched the replays and came up with two different answers, one said head and feed wigan, for the first knock on, the other head and feed warrington, mathers knocked on, but wigan had the ball as farrell crossed the advantage line.

so if two refs come up with 2 interpretations of the rules what chance have we got!

and for the record, two top chaps.

That was my thought, i was under the impression that there was no way it could of been Warringtons ball.

Im not sure why Farrell didnt just dive on the ball instead of trying to pick it up too, he would of slid over the line easily.

Should have been Wigan head and feed, not really any doubt about it. Mather knocked on and Farrell never gained possession so couldn't have crossed the advantage line with the ball.

I doubt it's actually in the rules but Riley should of had a talking too for kicking out so close to another players head.

Good post, and very worrying.

I don't think the pass was forward. Yes, Joel had a brainstorm and should not have kicked, but there is one very big positive to come out of this - Joel's lightning pace over that 30 metres or so! That, though, contributed to one of the problems - Gleeson was about 20 yards back and Goulding was not quite there - Joel should have probably just appplied the brakes a little, drawn Mather and passed to Goulding, but if the support/right centre ( Gleeson) had been where he should have been, there wouldn't have been this problem. There was a Wigan man in support coming up inside too, but the cover was also tracking across.

So wrong decision Joel - followed by another wrong decision by the VR!

I was also intending to write that Joel might yet be the long term solution to Wigan's centre problem when Carmont/Gleeson retire. He's certainly fast enough! Particularly if we have so many back row forwards

His passing is nowhere near good enough.

That's true. His pass to Pat v Saints being a prime example.

The one out wide to Goulding early in the 1st half last week wasn't too smart either.

Gleeson should have been their to bridge the gap. If you've got it on sky+ or similar then give it another watch and look where he is. I've watched it over and over agian, I can't see a move being set up that requires him to be that deep, I can't even see him tying his lace! I honestly have no idea where he was for that ball.

If Gleeson is there, he would probably score that on his own without Goulding, or Riley comes in and Goulding walks it, was a wierd on that.

The problem is that he's had a few brain farts this year when presented with golden attacking opportunities. If Joel does move to centre he'll find himself in those positions a lot more often and will need to make the correct decision more often than not or we'll waste a lot of scoring chances.

With the Farrell thing last week I can't help but look at who Joel was facing (bloody Mathers) and remember the attempted tackle he made on Jon Wilkin at Millenium Magic where Mathers had a flimsy waft at him and got a big chunk of nothing, allowing Wilkin to trot under the sticks. Back yourself Joel! It's only bloody Mathers!

He blew a try when at centre in the loss to Bradford. Should have gone alone but instead passed into touch.

Still, he's my vote for player of the season.

Yes, your fella (cant remember now) kicked it after mathers' knock on. I definately remember him kicking it because I came out with the same decision as the VR before it appeared on the screen

It was Joel Tomkins who was tackling Mathers. However, if you watch the replay you will see that Joel never played the ball, although it did come off his foot.