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

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.



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.