In the closing stages of a game where a try to either side likely decides it, running with a game plan involving zero attacking plays received what it deserved on this occasion. Not Watson's finest hour.

This taking the ball into the Wigan corners thing was an attempt to be Sinfield-esque - but it lacked the perfect execution, the rough defence to force a meaningful subsequent error by Wigan bringing it out and most of all Huddersfield didn't vary it at all, which suggests the players were just following the basic plan rather than using their own judgement. Sinfield loved pinning the opposition down in the dying parts of big games but would decide what to do based on the situation on the field rather than just doing only the same thing over and over.

The seven tackle rule has driven a lot of this kind of negativity. If it was up to me I would tweak the rule so it punishes kicks that go dead in goal from beyond half way , but not when the attacking team are in the oppositions half. At least then we might see more attacking kicks close to the line.

Interesting idea, I agree something needs to change, many sets are now 4 one out drives, maybe put on a link and some width on tackle 5 and then either a couple of passes and someone dying with the ball on 6 or if further out a random kick from second row or centre or just a chip to the corner. The first 30 minutes are like painting by numbers.
Staying in the arm wrestle does not lead to much entertainment.

Agreed....still fat as well

Once again the rules of the game have changed dramatically in the space of 8 / 10 weeks . We were told player welfare was all important and attacks to the head need to be removed from the game . I watched Smithies ( a thug at the best of times ) take 2 players out on Saturday with blatent head high tackles , with only penalties given on each .
The first one , you would say penalty sufficient , but a second has to be a Yellow card minimum.
Either Child didn`t have the bottle to send him to the bin , or the game has now totally abandoned the removal of the attack to the head .
I agree the standard of the game was very poor - Wigan were clueless and error prone in the first half , and Huddersfield were not good enough to capitalise on the game being handed to them.

And just to prove my case , the thug gets a 4 match ban today . The lack of consistency in our game is unbelievable .

100% a yellow for the second offence.
Think 4 matches is harsh though.

2 different head shots each getting 2 games. Isn't that about the going rate?

So does this in effect mean Child should have sent him off twice yet did not put him in the sin bin once?
Game changing decisions, why not refer to video ref ?

No because yellows get bans these days. Not to forget Yates also got a ban.

This is where I get lost, Smithies does 2 head shots on Huddersfield, no sin bin, no sending off, they lose their best chance of a trophy in years,

Wigan’s next 4 opponents now benefit more than Huddersfield.
How can this be right?

the Yates one getting a 2 game ban is a joke, nowhere near as bad as Smithies 2nd one

Not ideal but it's been like this for donkeys with judgements handed down post matches. I suppose refs will always miss stuff and the thinking must be that a belated ban is better than no ban at all.
As for Hudds, their own lack of attacking ambition in those last 15 mins did more to scupper their chances than any non-decision by Child IMO.

I agree about their lack of ambition but that May have worked v 12 men for 10, 20 minutes or rest of the match.
The danger with refs not wanting to sin bin or send off in big games is it encourages players to go after key playmakers to win the game and if ban comes post match, so be it.