Since when was the ball going backwards a knock-on? He ripped it backwards, it moved backwards, no problem.

I don't think Wakey fans can be disgruntled with the officials - Kear says you didn't get the rub of green. Fair enough, you didn't for about ten minutes; you did for the other 70 with unpunished laying on in the tackle, facials and elbows on the floor, etc.

There was however one glaring inconsistency, that being the penalty that gave you the 30-28 lead. I've absolutely no issue with the penalty being awarded - it was daft (by McGoldrick again) and a clear penalty. The issue is that interference with the first marker wasn't dealt with at all during the game and Cas were subjected to it two or three times per set every time Wakey were in posession. If we're going to punish these things and try and clean up the scrappy ruck (the current disease of Super League) then let's be consistent about it and deal with it from the kick off, rather than letting it escalate to a point where it might decide a game in the last ten minutes through frustration and stupidity.

Get a seat belt!

This is more like it, a bit of banter over a game makes a change from PP and Stadiums, strange though its almost the same posters offering biased opinions.

Nowt changes does it.

I am pretty sure having watched the game back that neither team has much to be proud of. There were a couple of decisions went against Wakey, but then again there were a few things that I would have ruled in Cas favour - for instance the Mathers "try".

It wasnt a try but I would have said that when the Wakey player deliberately makes a play for the ball (rightly) in that scenario to save a try, becuase without that intervention Mathers would have scored..... But in my view the Wakey arm grounded the ball oiver the line, saved a try but should have been a drop out - in my view.

The main thing I will say, and those who read my stuff should know I am rarely biased or one-eyed I try to be objective - is that when a back rower wanders over the line without a hand on him in the back row channel not in the corner, with a winger and a centre still outside him unused...... then that is not a ref call or a rub of the green issue, that is rank bad defence, that try was the game winner.

I thought Wakey played pretty well and got off to a dream start - Cas, started bad and found a way, but we haven't showed any of our early season form since Easter...... it says 2 points in the paper and thats all that was gained from this. Wakey didn't lose anything on Saturday, realistically even if they had won, it wouldnt have changed much - Wakey eyes are on 2012 already and good luck to them for having something positive to look forward to, it has been a dark year in Wakey.

I notice that you have failed to mention the 4 disallowed tries which due to the technology available proved that the officials got it right every time even the one Wakey had chalked off, and also when Owen's foot was clearly in touch before he head butted Tadulala's arm which they missed, so I am mystified why you have highlighted an incident that clearly see's him knock the ball down, if a player is facing the opposition try line and knocks the ball
down then as shown on TV it confirms it then I cannot see the point of your argument, as I said to fully its all ifs and buts this splitting hair stuff the officials are never going to have the perfect game, they came good for us with the disallowed tries but failed to spot the 2 important infringements which could have altered the game, we lost you were the better team and won on merit, and my point to fully was why not just accept it instead of trying to make out it was easier than it actually was.

Class,real class,were you ever in special school?

Feck me what a thread. I'm really puzzled as to why I bother with these forums any more. Some of the arguments some people make are an absolute embarrassment to the human race.

Try reading the post above the one you've replied to.

Cas have been on the receiving end of a number of calls this season where the ball has been called as having gone back, despite the opposition player facing their opponents posts, and despite the ball not being ripped out. If the ball is ripped out when facing the opponents posts, it will only go backwards if you think about it. Either way, at least we've finally seen some consistency on this particular interpretation and got the call in our favour.

That expensive state education you have had seems to have let you down in the reading department love, it was you that said you had 4 tries disallowed, I merely pointed out that the technology proved you wrong or do you want to split hairs on that one as well, and that same technology also proved that Wakefield were hard done by on 2 occasions which resulted in 2 tries for you, and was simply a response to you and your post trying to make your win that much bigger when in fact is wasn't, all I am guilty of is offering an alternative to your version of events, and IF YOU READ MY RESPONSE I conceded that Cas were the better team on the day and deserved their win, if I might just make a suggestion here why don't you read what is written before jumping in with both feet half cocked with your hair brained thoughts' hth.

I'm quite sure you have been on the receiving end of some bad decisions' all season as we have and I've no doubt every other club has, I have already pointed out to you that there is no such thing as perfect officials' and I'd bet there has never been a game played where they got it right every time, fwiw I do not have a problem with any decision the ref made on Saturday, he called things how he saw it end of, I simply offered you an alternative opinion.

So you said before that you can't see the point of my argument, whilst having a moan about a knock-on that wasn't given. You now say you don't have any problem with any decision made in the game. Why contradict yourself purely for the sake of offering 'an alternative opinion?' Is your backside not hurting yet from sitting on that fence?

you do not have an argument or even a valid point to make, just an assumption that on the basis the official did not see him rife the ball out it's not a knock on. As well you know I was not moaning about it either, just offering fully an alternative outlook on the game but don't let that stop you from a bit of selective misquoting as with the reference to my thoughts' on the referee I doubt you would be happy with some of the decisions that went against us had the situation been reversed, but the point I was trying to get across to you unsuccessful as it was that these things happen in the game and the best thing to do is accept them and move on which you clearly have not, I do hope I have put my point across to you without contradicting myself too much, but I'm sure there will be some thing in there for you to turn into another pointless post.

Keep going Bonzo.

You will wear him down to the point where he tells you (again ) how he got his name.