It certainly was strange that SKy went from "lets run the incident"....to a very abrute halt just at the crucial frame which left Wiggy floundering a bit.

My initial reaction was WTF?.... but I guess as there were still a sizeable number of fans still in the ground, and able to view the big screen, that if such a stamping incident had occurred, common sense would dictate that showing it could cause a riot.

It'll all come out in the wash anyway.

Whilst not condoning what McGuire did, that type of foul happens in almost every game and largely goes unnoticed. Coley on McGuire at Headingley?
I suppose in this instance a little bit of rough justice has been served, which, considering McGuire's overall contribution to the game, is unfortunate.

I was too busy watching the ref at the point to see what happened. But there was a lot of booing down below us and screaming at the Wigan player who had gone over, as though something happened after. Maybe that is where McClennan is coming from.

Bluey is reasonably switched on and generally not quick to apportion any blame or make rash post match interview comments. I suspect that something has been said in the dressing room by Danny or some of the other players but it could be that Bluey only got half and they were just complaining about Riddell running over to an injured McGuire. If something has gone on after, then Riddell is going to find himself in all heaps of trouble! I was there and didn't see anything but all eyes were on Alibert!

The vitriol coming from many a Wigan poster and tweeter over the McGuire incident, wishing him injured and so forth, I am very disappointed in. McGuire took Carmont out, plain and simple, it is a penalty and without doubt 10 mins in the bin and even though Danny had left the pitch injured Alibert should still have had the bottle to show him yellow for the record. He did it out of nothing more than passion, mixed with desperation and here is the bit many of the Wigan (so called fans!) are missing, do they really, really think that many a Wigan player would not have done exactly the same thing, if that incident was the other way around? I would have bet my house that both of the Tomkins brothers would have and a whole host of other players on both the Wigan and Leeds sides!

Any Wigan fan that thinks that would have not happened if the boot was on the other foot was kidding themselves and are clearly deluded!

What most fans are missing is that Alibert didn't actually penalise McGuire, he penalised Donald.

It was a farcical end to the game from the hapless officials. The sequence being that Alibert didn't see McGuire hold back Carmont but was happy there was no offence from Donald. The TJ then comes on and says Donald was late Alibert says he is happy Donald wasn't late then the "eye in the sky" has a word in Halibuts ear and tells him about the McGuire incident.

After minutes of looking clueless with no idea what to do Alibert penalises the Donald incident he had already ruled upon as being fair, thus giving Richards an extra ten yards for the kick at goal,

Very badly handled by Alibert.

From what I remember, McClennan mentioned in the interview it was Leuluai who caused the injury. Could be wrong though

Both McLennan and Eddie Hemmings got the wrong man standing over McGuire because it was Riddell. Eddie Hemmings said it was Sam Tomkins and McLennan thought it was Leuluai.

Either way McGuire was injured in the act of bringing down Carmont.

Not proven yet. Hence why Bluey has asked the match commissioner to review what happened.

Agree 100% and even then Richards did'nt take the kick from the right place.

Spot on mate, and it brings us back to the issue of clarification on the exact role and responsibilities of the video ref!

Uncle Albert's problem is that he has no authority and is very easy to change his mind and crowds are getting to know this! I think he got the Donald call on Richards spot on first time, even in slow-mo Donald clearly does not see the ball getting kicked by Richards as his head down and he is quite rightly just looking to make the tackle. Richards knows he is in trouble and that Donald is very likely to take him in to touch... that is why he bloody kicked the ball in the first place!!!

The touch judge should have been waved away (in respect of this incident) and Alibert should have had the balls to stick with his original and correct decision IMO on the Donald/Richards incident full stop!

The issue of Alibert and Bentham is the one that interests me most because I don't think that the touch judge saw it so how did Bentham get involved? If Alibert asked Bentham to look at something in back play because Wigan players were protesting, fair enough, but it looks like Bentham is just chiming in on the basis of the replays that Sky were generally showing. If Alibert asked Bentham why did Bentham not then get a 'formal' video replay from Sky? I think both Alibert & Bentham were crapping themselves over a reverse Millennium Magic type incident and in doing do did the things that we were told they couldn't do in the future.

It was a penalty and a yellow card (which should have come, even if he was injured) to McGuire but it was 20 metres further back and even Cummins will know that when he looks at the video! Alibert is very, very poor under pressure!

I think he was definitely injured in bringing Carmont down, if something happened after that is another incident.

I think Donald was committed to the tackle on Richards, but we should have recieved a penalty for the McGuire challenge, and from that position I think we'd have kicked for touch and tried a last gasp drop goal attempt.

And for anyone who thinks the refs are biased towards Wigan...

Leeds player committed to tackle - penalty to Wigan.

Wigan player committed to challenge in cup - Sin bin.
Wigan player tackles Leeds player with ball - Sin bin.

You do know that taking a kicker out late AND high whilst making no attempt at the ball is an automatic yellow don't you?

It indeed should have been a penalty further back and on one of your other two comments re the CC game I also agree, you were very hard done by and it was a poor call.

But that is how it goes, had Richards kicked the penalty that he was lucky to get at the point he did and not 20 metres further back, then we would have been even more upset. Opinions are opinions and we all have them!

Alibert puts his hand to his earpiece and says 'Phi' before he can get the name out Bentham is instructing him of the decision. 'Tackle late ..... where?' asks Alibert.

The fact Bentham instructs Alibert precisely to the point the kick is to be taken from proves he was ruling on the Donald obstruction on Richards (which ironically Alibert had got right IMO before being talked out of it.)

Earlier in the game after the Sinfield challenge on Fielden (nice to see Stuey still throwing the ball away in order to fight, old habits obviously die hard) Alibert had asked Bentham for the mark for the penalty.

I think Alibert was going to ask Bentham either way and I suspect most, if not all referees, would have done the same.



One or two offences doesn't really matter. I doubt there is a rule that says in such an instance the referee has to go back to the first one, he's going to give the penalty to the best advantage of the non offending team and I have no problem with that. I agree that Donald's challenge was never a penalty but that's not how the linesman or the video referee saw it.

The decision that got me was when Leeds conceded a drop out when the Wigan player clearly knocked the ball forward first. The video referee could and should have been consulted then, IMO.