Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:09 am  

Bentham is a proud Warrington fan and IIRC we never won a game that he was officiating last year, Ganson is a staunch Saints fan yet you muppets believe we had the rub of the green???

What about the 3 ball steals that were given as knock ons that ganson refused to even glance at the reply, what about the Phantom penalty in the corner when Finch was playing the ball, what about the 2 knock ons from your one good player that were ignored, what about the fact the you only packed a scrum down with 5 men on more than one occasion.

Need I go on??

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:57 am  

Vectrabeast wrote:

Bentham is a proud Warrington fan and IIRC we never won a game that he was officiating last year, Ganson is a staunch Saints fan yet you muppets believe we had the rub of the green???

What about the 3 ball steals that were given as knock ons that ganson refused to even glance at the reply, what about the Phantom penalty in the corner when Finch was playing the ball, what about the 2 knock ons from your one good player that were ignored, what about the fact the you only packed a scrum down with 5 men on more than one occasion.

Need I go on??

Wow. The bitterness is strong with you. IIRC, didn't you win the game?!

We know we're no angels but the sooner you can accept that about your lot, the better. Perhaps tiddlywinks would be more your thing - collision sports seem to get your back up.

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:18 am  

Bonzo wrote:

You clearly have some sort of problem with Jake Emmitt...

Wigan were clearly given benefit of the doubt with their 'obstruction' try. It was a 50/50 for me because there was still a defender in a position to make a tackle and halt the move; however the dummy runner prevented our defence from sliding together to cover the wing and it could just as easily have been disallowed for that.

With the Ferres effort, there wasn't any point in the replays where you could conclusively say that the ball wasn't grounded; that is to say you could clearly see something between the ball and the grass and prove the ball had not been grounded. That considered, it should've been given as benefit of the doubt. Even McGuire seemed surprised it had been disallowed.

I really do get the feeling that Bentham has something against us this season and he's been pretty consistent in that from the very beginning.

I dont often post on referees performances as its a difficult thankless task, however I am in full agreement with you on Bentham a season or two back he always seemed to have a good game for us, this season though we seem to get one dodgy decision after another out of him.

As for last nights decisions, I thought the obstruction was a 50/50 probably giving benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. I thought Ferres scored, again from benefit of the doubt as you couldnt conclusively prove either way.

Finally what a to**er Paul Cullen is, this guys obvious dislike of Cas is laughable, never has a good word to say about us. I reckon Richard Wright and TM had a foursome with Cullen & Benthams wives and thats why there so vexed off with us!

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:31 am  

westyorkylad wrote:

I dont often post on referees performances as its a difficult thankless task, however I am in full agreement with you on Bentham a season or two back he always seemed to have a good game for us, this season though we seem to get one dodgy decision after another out of him.

It's not a 'good game for us' that we want them to have. What we want and what the game needs is for any given incident, in any given game, with any given team of match officials, to result in the same consistent, fair outcome in alignment with the operational rules. This is something which we seem to be moving further and further away from in the last couple of years.

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:42 am  

Bonzo wrote:

Wow. The bitterness is strong with you. IIRC, didn't you win the game?!

We know we're no angels but the sooner you can accept that about your lot, the better. Perhaps tiddlywinks would be more your thing - collision sports seem to get your back up.

No bitterness from me, I'm happy that we beat you despite playing nowhere near our best and having 3 or 4 players continuing on one leg! I'm happy that despite you coming to head hunt and rough us up as others have tried that we didn't rise and beat you fair and square.

I'm merely highlighting some of the laughable decisions that went against us despite your calls of foul play

I don't need to accept anything about our lot, we play within the rules and when we cross the line we are rightly penalised, however our play wins us trophies and as long as that is the case I'll continue to be happy.

What do you mean by collision sports get my back up??? I don't play any collision sports

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:18 pm  

Vectrabeast wrote:

No bitterness from me, I'm happy that we beat you despite playing nowhere near our best and having 3 or 4 players continuing on one leg! I'm happy that despite you coming to head hunt and rough us up as others have tried that we didn't rise and beat you fair and square.

Your posts come accross as being very bitter and condescending, as if you are under the impression you had a god-given right last night to ship about 70 points past us because we only had the kids out. Have you considered that you weren't at your best because of our team's efforts in containing you, Tomkins and Finch especially?

'Head hunt' is rather harsh too - some of our forwards made some ferocious tackles - isn't that what the game's about? When the players got the technique wrong and went high, they were rightfully penalised; on two occasions they were penalised even though the tackle was on the shoulder.

Vectrabeast wrote:

I'm merely highlighting some of the laughable decisions that went against us despite your calls of foul play

Yes the one in the corner was rather laughable - a fine example of what should happen when an attacking player is pratting about, trying to milk a penalty. Clever play if you can hoodwink the referee (Bradford do it all the time), and many would fall for it too.

Vectrabeast wrote:

I don't need to accept anything about our lot, we play within the rules and when we cross the line we are rightly penalised, however our play wins us trophies and as long as that is the case I'll continue to be happy.

Well it won you two last year But rightly so - you were the best side overall last season and deserved to win the title. My point is that your team are no less rough than we are - this is after all a fierce and brutal collision sport that we all enjoy; there's no room for softness and hesitation.

Vectrabeast wrote:

What do you mean by collision sports get my back up??? I don't play any collision sports

I mean watching your team. Do you have a problem with the fact that an injury ravaged team of kids gave you a game last night? Whilst you deserved to win the game and we acknowledge that, shouldn't you also acknowledge (as a number of other Wigan fans and neutrals have) what was, under the circumstances, a rather impressive Cas performance?

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:28 pm  

Vectrabeast wrote:

what about the Phantom penalty in the corner when Finch was playing the ball,

You need to learn the laws of the game and also you have no experience of playing the game what so ever.

I'll educate you.

Wigan are on their own line, playing the ball on the first. finch goes to play the ball, but hesitates and points at the Cas players telling the referee they are offside. He does it again and tells the referee they are offside. The referee awards a penalty for incorrect play of the ball.

The reason why Finch hesitates in playing the ball is so that the Cas defence will be offside, Wigan get a penalty and get off their line very easy. By not playing the ball when he is clearly stood upright, and has clearly started the act of playing the ball he can delay then play the ball and catch offside the Cas defence. some might say this is experience, or some might call it cheating. The rules of the game take this act as cheating, hence the penalty awarded to Cas.

Learn the game, know the rules, watch the game, understand it and maybe even play it before coming out with crap.

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:07 pm  

marshman wrote:

You need to learn the laws of the game and also you have no experience of playing the game what so ever.

I'll educate you.

Wigan are on their own line, playing the ball on the first. finch goes to play the ball, but hesitates and points at the Cas players telling the referee they are offside. He does it again and tells the referee they are offside. The referee awards a penalty for incorrect play of the ball.

The reason why Finch hesitates in playing the ball is so that the Cas defence will be offside, Wigan get a penalty and get off their line very easy. By not playing the ball when he is clearly stood upright, and has clearly started the act of playing the ball he can delay then play the ball and catch offside the Cas defence. some might say this is experience, or some might call it cheating. The rules of the game take this act as cheating, hence the penalty awarded to Cas.

Learn the game, know the rules, watch the game, understand it and maybe even play it before coming out with crap.

No need to educate me bud, I've forgot more about rugby than you know, the point you are describing is all very true apart from the fact that you suggest Finch delays the play of the ball twice.......absolute bull***t and you need to rewatch the incident before you climb onto your soapbox with your "mighty rugby league knowledge" Finch was trying to play the ball but was being interfered with by hands in at the ruck, then as he goes to play the ball he points out that the Cas players are all offside, something that happens all the time but was only penalised last night, the only thing finch was guilty of was not just playing the ball, if he had Cas would have been penalised for being offside and trying to "gain an advantage" (cheat)

Try again

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:14 pm  

Bonzo wrote:

Your posts come accross as being very bitter and condescending, as if you are under the impression you had a god-given right last night to ship about 70 points past us because we only had the kids out. Have you considered that you weren't at your best because of our team's efforts in containing you, Tomkins and Finch especially?

'Head hunt' is rather harsh too - some of our forwards made some ferocious tackles - isn't that what the game's about? When the players got the technique wrong and went high, they were rightfully penalised; on two occasions they were penalised even though the tackle was on the shoulder.

Yes the one in the corner was rather laughable - a fine example of what should happen when an attacking player is pratting about, trying to milk a penalty. Clever play if you can hoodwink the referee (Bradford do it all the time), and many would fall for it too.

Well it won you two last year But rightly so - you were the best side overall last season and deserved to win the title. My point is that your team are no less rough than we are - this is after all a fierce and brutal collision sport that we all enjoy; there's no room for softness and hesitation.

I mean watching your team. Do you have a problem with the fact that an injury ravaged team of kids gave you a game last night? Whilst you deserved to win the game and we acknowledge that, shouldn't you also acknowledge (as a number of other Wigan fans and neutrals have) what was, under the circumstances, a rather impressive Cas performance?

I don't care how you feel my points are coming across to be honest and nowhere have I suggested we had a divine right to win by 70 points. You did play well I fully accept that but you also have to acknowledge that we lost Hock after 3 minutes, Carmont to injury for a lot of the game, Finch was clearly not fit and neither was goulding, add that to the weather and it was always going to be a tough game.

You did make some ferocious tackles but you also made a lot of illegal tackles, many that went unpunished.


I don't have a problem at all with an injury ravaged team playing well against us, its no coincidence that often a below strength team does raise their game as the players that come in are usually hungry and playing for their place, look at us against Hudds earlier in the season with about 9 first teamers out.


You played well but not well enough, correct?

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:41 pm  

Vectrabeast wrote:

You did make some ferocious tackles but you also made a lot of illegal tackles, many that went unpunished.

You say we made a lot of illegal tackles but took offence when Wigan's tackling technique was brought under scrutiny. Now even though many referees have come in for some flack of late, would it not be wise to place that responsibility on his shoulders here and give benefit of the doubt to his impartiality?

Cas fans are saying there are issues with Wigan's technique relating to the standing leg being attacked - fair comment if it was happening, as that's been outlawed. Personally I saw it happen a couple of times, but not as consistently as some are making out, although I wasn't looking for it.

You're saying we went high and it went unpunished. Again I saw a few of these and they were generally punished. Where they weren't, a quick glance at the screen would normally show a replay with a contact point on the chest or shoulder. Indeed I felt that we too were subjected to one or two high shots that also went unpunished.

Generally speaking, the game flowed really well and it was obvious that whilst both sides wanted to get into eachother in defence, they also wanted to play expansive rugby - impressive given the conditions.

Vectrabeast wrote:

You played well but not well enough, correct?

We played very well considering we started with 11 first team players missing and by the 7th minute were down by one more. It's tough on the lads to say they didn't play well enough, in my opinion they did and couldn't have given any more. What cost us mostly was inexperience, which was always going to be an issue in such a close game as I predicted at half time.