99.7% of people will not suffer a fatality and as "diseases" go that's pretty re assuring. Unfortunatley herd immunity, a system that has seved mankind well for millions of years has now seemingly been abolished by the government.
As for the bug that affected Wigan on that fatefull day at Belle Vue, I'm sure the players and officials are all the stronger for it now, and hopefully immune from further attacks too.

I thought Child was consistent tonight. The pass from Farrell to Burgess wasn’t forward and it was Bibby that knocked on not Johnstone for Tupou’s no try.

As for Powell’s, it was never going to get ruled out due to the on field try decision, and there wasn’t enough evidence to overrule it.

Child did his usual thing of giving one team a load of penalties/set restarts, then the other.

In the end, we just couldn’t crack Wigan’s defence.

Problem is I know there’s going to be more lineup changes again next week. Chester just can’t seem to stick on a 17 for more than a week whether it’s forced due to injuries/covid or not. Hard to get consistency which is why we are where we are, Clearly some bad eggs in the camp which doesn’t help.

Good luck to you lot for the rest of the year.

Hardaker in the centre doesn’t work.

He’s not electric, fast or creative enough for full back either.

Haven’t seen the game (work!!) but from reading the reports it seems we were abit scratchy, hit and miss. Wakey are a dogged side and can dig their heels in so I wasn’t expecting a blow out score to be honest. Happy for the win and it reads like we did it tough.

It felt like ideal preparation for next week IMO. If we’d gone out their and coasted to a 60 point win, it wouldn’t have done us that much good in the grand scheme of things. We came up against a side who looked that determined to put in a shift for the coach and the club that the players were really pushed and had to put full effort in. It was an enjoyable game.

Yep, I’d agree with that. Wakey did what Saints will do in that they’ll come out determined to put a shift in and will push the lads all the way, albeit Saints will be better at it.

There was a lot of discussion about about Wakefields weakened team. However look at their squad viewtopic.php?f=33&t=626243 and then look at their team last night. https://www.superleague.co.uk/match-centre/report/3364 It wasn't as weak as was made out.

There was a lot of discussion about about Wakefields weakened team. However look at their squad viewtopic.php?f=33&t=626243 and then look at their team last night. https://www.superleague.co.uk/match-centre/report/3364 It wasn't as weak as was made out.

I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed last nights game, it had a bit of everything. Wakefield were good, we showed the type of resilience we had in the big games under Wane but coupled with some very good ball movement at times. Some of the criticism is harsh imo. Child though was terrible.

The Powell try is one that has consistently irked me for years. IMO he lost control of the ball, because it looks like there was a fingertip on it the try is given. We’ve seen this time and time again and a try is given every time. I think it was Barry Mac who said I don’t think this is a try but he’ll give it. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said that over the past 4 or 5 years.

The Wakefield no try simply couldn’t be given as anything else. Anyone who claims they can, with any certainty say who knocked the ball to the ground is watching with tinted glasses or being deliberately obtuse, there’s no way the VR could go with anything other than the ref’s call.

All in all, a good game and a good win, I’m now looking forward to watching the kids on Tuesday and the semi final.

It didn't matter who the ball came off as it went backwards from a Wakefield point of view. Try all day long

It went forward off Johnstone IMO and went backwards in your opinion. I’d call that club bias mixed in with it being a touch and go call. I thought the refs on field call was fair enough and the video ref couldn’t turn that over.

I’d be more annoyed with the Powell try if I were a Wakey fan. He’s lost control of the ball but because it’s given on field, it’s not considered to be a clear enough loss of control for the video ref to go against his mates decision on the field.

Ultimately the process needs changing for me. The on field decision prejudices the video refs call and it’s never sat right with me. If you’re not sure, go to the video ref and let him decide. If it’s an absolute 50/50 the benefit goes to the attacking team.

And I'd disagree with that. His forearm and fingers on the ball carrying arm never lose contact with the ball. They're given every week. It all depends on your view of what constitutes losing control. If you're disallowing because of some arbitrary judgement call of what constitutes under control I'd suggest we'll be disallowing a lot more than we do. Some part of the hand/arm touching the ball has always been try as per Stevo's "fingertip control". Whether it should be is an entirely separate argument.

Couldn't agree more with the sending it up one way or the other though. Either make the call (right or wrong) OR send it up. Not both.

Absolutely

And as I mentioned earlier, you shouldn't have had the ball in the first place as Johnstone knocked on the set before but a dropout was given.

Control isn't part of the rule. It's downward pressure you need.

The ref should either award the try or he shouldn’t. There should be no sending it to the video ref with ‘I’ve got a try / no try’ message.
This is I feel where the captain’s challenge rule could be used, it’s the captains call if he thinks the ref is wrong in his decision. Give two captains challenges per team but these should only be used in the action of scoring a try and not for knock on/ obstruction to the lead up, this area should still be controlled by the official

Indeed. Quite clearly downward pressure in this case too so makes it all the more a try (if that's possible).

I'd disagree. It's tight but I think there's separation (thus no downward pressure, knock on)

The operative word there is "think" Grimmy. If you can show me a single frame of footage that shows separation then I'll agree. I'd counter your assertion and say that ball movement does not necessarily imply separation. Whether you "think" it did or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it cannot be shown, less so proven. Try all day long.

P.S. Am I right in remembering you advocating try for the "Ryan Hall finger tip control" no try for GB? If not, as you were. If so, what do you see as the difference?

Yes, as I say it's tight. I see why the on field officials didn't pick it up, and the video ref didn't have enough evidence to overturn it. Obviously my thoughts are immaterial the same as yours, doesn't stop us talking about it!

Hall - you keep going back to control, that's not a factor in it. Yes I do think Hall's should have been awarded. He had downward pressure on the ball IMO, never any separation after he touched it.

That Ryan Hall try gets given if it's Inglis to win it for Oz

Don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean immaterial in that sense. All opinions are immaterial except the ref's. I meant immaterial with regards to this discussion as thinking something is not the same as being able to prove it. Not a single frame of footage shows separation so for you to think something has no bearing on proving your point (purely within the framework of this discussion). So when you advocate "no try" I'm asking for you to illustrate why. (That being the point of a discussion, no?)

The Ryan Hall was exactly the same in that at no point could separation be shown, therefore "try".

You're not wrong EC!

For me, he doesn't move his hand and yet the ball begins to move, that's why I'm saying no try. Yes some part of his hand/arm may have still been on it, but I think the ball starts moving early enough that it's more likely to have completely separated. All chip paper now of course and as you say, there's no definitive shot to completely prove it.

Can't agree with your "more likely to have completely separated" comment. Based on what? It's equally likely to have stayed in contact. There is no empirical way to favour one scenario over the other. It's a 50-50 at best.

All chip paper now though as you say and the chip papers agree it was a try

I can't be bothered. It's a tight call