Should never have been a try if he`s throwing meters at people, not a good advert for Wigan education are you?

When did this "momentum rule" come into force?

Then you clearly dont understand 'the momentum rule' probably because it doesnt exist. Its clear you dont understand the reasons why the VR isnt used for forward passes and its clear you dont understand the affect of momentum on the forward pass rule, but you still persist in arguing that a pass described by the media as [iThe Lee Mossop pass that gave Lima the momentum for his second try was clearly forward, [/iwasnt. Why?
You are embarrasing yourself here. You would have to be an absolute moron to be arguing that an incorrect forward pass decision that was the final pass ten yars out and leading to a try wasnt affected by the referee's decision, but that an (possible) incorrect play the ball (what criteria for a play the ball do you think Ablett didnt meet? he certainly regained his feet, he puts the ball down and rolls it back and makes an attempt to touch the ball with his foot) 2 tackles before a try on the other side of the field is [ia clear case of an incorrect call affecting the game[/i. Oh thats what you have done!

Actually, I said it was one of the most borderline examples of a forward pass I'd seen and that given video footage is unreliable it's somewhat silly of you to form an opinion that you are 100% certain of using video footage as a basis. But hey, if the media say it was forward it must be.


Is the froth from your mouth dripping onto your keyboard or something? I assume that you're trying to say the forward pass affected the try and are just having a communication melt-down. If that's the case then I disagree, the pass was so borderline that the try would have been scored either way. Of course it's conjecture from both of us but I'm sure you'll insist you are factually 100% correct as indicated by your crystal ball (which, incidentally, I've hear they still use as a means of local authority governance round your way). My opinion, however, is based on the way Lima simply swatted opposition players away with ease when they really had a very good opportunity to tackle him. Nothing to do with the pass, just very poor tackling.


He was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it. It wasn't a correct PTB by any definition. You know the difference between RL and RU don't you?


Oh the media said did they? Well, perhaps if you weren't so unfamiliar with Rugby League you could rely on your own knowledge and not the media. Here's a helpful pointer9 Touch & Touch InGoal
7. In all aspects of general play, a player who does not deliberately play at the ball (eg. ricochet or rebound) will not be disadvantaged by a consequent restart of play when the ball has gone dead or into touch.[/i


Ha ha, you really are putting a lot of effort into this sidetracking attempt aren't you? But just to put this to bed once and for all, what position did Tommy L play on Sat and what number did he have on his back? Now I predict that you'll either a) answer correctly and demonstrate my point quite nicely, or b) ignore the question which would indicate, using your own logic, that you have no Rugby League knowledge. So which is it?

And as i explained, there are reasons why the VR isnt used, reasons not applicable in this case. You then explained your misunderstanding of momentum. It wasnt boderline. It wasnt even close. It was clearly forwa

I dont disagree it was poor tackling. It doesnt affect the fact it was a forward pass and led directly to a try. By any logic this had more of an affect than an (possible) incorrect play the ball 2 tackles before a try was scored.

No he didnt. What criteria specifically for a play the ball wasnt met? As in what actually happened.

He played at the ball in exactly the same way Burrow did. Everybody else has seemed to understand this.

What number did Mr Mcilorum wear? It doesnt alter the fact had your bias not affected your view you would have easily recognised one of the most famous number 9's in the world, wearing number 9.

Froth again?

An incorrect PTB that gave a clear advantage to break the unset defensive line and gain about 30 undeserved metres, as opposed to an alleged marginally forward pass to Lima who physically destroyed your "defensive" (and I use the term loosely) line.


He got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards. Clear incorrect PTB, or do you have some evidence to show him on 2 feet? AnswerHe played at the ball in exactly the same way Burrow did. Everybody else has seemed to understand this.'"

Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres?

You got both. We seem to be going full circle - I'm not familiar with the Leeds squad numbers. You responded by saying it was obviously Buderus as he was the hooker and had 9 on. I pointed out that players wear squad numbers these days. Simple. The fact that you didn't know this--even about your own team--is hugely embarrassing for you.

Fair enough.

Yes, it does carry on you know. I put the video on there to show that. Nice bit of interference there aswell. Something you said didnt happen, then you have posted a picture of it happening. That must be hugely embarrassing for you.

You have also failed to answer why your idea of what he does has changed from [iHe was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it[/i to [iHe got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards?[/i

You're reaching new levels of childishness now.


Are you claiming that Ablett goes on to regain both feet, then places the ball on the ground in order to make it a correct PTB? Beware that if you do make this claim I'll be forced to embarrass you again by showing clearly that this does not happen. He places the ball on the ground whilst he is on one knee, as can be seen.


He didn't interfere. There was nothing preventing Ablett from regaining his feet other than his own desire to cheat.


When a player dives forward onto the floor over the ball they tend to be horizontal, but that's largely irrelevant, since both are incorrect PTBs. Take your pick.

For me the game was spoiled by 4 decisions by Bentham and the other officials:-

1. The tackle on Delaney in the first half which was not deemed dangerous, his feet were clearly lifted above his head.
2. The tackle which took Jones-Bishop into touch, he clearly had both feet lifted off the floor.
3. The forward pass for Lima's 2nd try though difficult to pick up when at speed and both players stood close together, plus Bentham was stood 10m in front so difficult for him to see from that angle and Hicks looked unsighted on the far side, don't know about Childs. Maybe we need to go to the video ref on these and if inconclusive, benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.
4. The decision on who knocked the ball out at such a crucial time late in the 2nd half should have gone to the video ref for clarification even if Hicks thought he was sure, for me Charnley was looking to get hold of the ball and deemed to play it.

All these went against Leeds and watching it as a neutral I thought it spoiled the game as a whole, I wasn't bothered who won as long as it was a good game to watch and it could have been a great game if those poor decisions weren't made, Wigan probably would still have shaded it.

As whenever Rovers are playing I don't mind losing as long it's not to controversial and incorrect decisions, but that's life.

You took your time. Usually I only manage a few posts before you start trying to discourage me from responding.