i saw jake having a laugh with the opposition players not whinging you need to take those cherry and white glasses off and you should know a whinger when you see one

as for Davies doubt he will get called up may get a caution but i would be surprised if he gets that

Typo corrected

I would disagree, dont actually think that picture shows anything conclusively. I think the ball is down (maybe im wrong), it wasn't given so it doesn't really matter now.

Emmit does whinge a bit but he's far from the worst, he has been pulled up about this before. Put in a solid shift tonight until his injury.

I wouldn't call Davies a dirty player, i'd call it commitment. He did make a couple of bad tackles (if they can be called that) but he's took a big step up in class tonight and done well, plays with a bit of passion and thats what we like to see at Cas.

The picture only shows it at that split second time, where are the ones leadoing up to it ? , The wigan players were trying to pull him back all the time so this clip could have been at that point, its inconclusive and should have been given the benefit,

Let's quote the INTELLIGENT reply first.
What a sad act you are, try listening to the game and read the comments on VT, ie "Lots of undue pressure on a joint there from Lima on Emmit, yet again. But did anyone notice Sam Tomkins telling him to do it as they were playing the ball. Shocking.", T!T

That for me shows that the ball is not on the floor Massive fail.

Lesson 1, "Learn from your mistakes" was obviously a success.

Lesson 2, "Try and reply with intelligence and facts rather than insults and bias" is next. Looks like a bit of a task.

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.

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.

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 ed off with us!

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.

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

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 5.08740234375:5