Great comeback! No really it was.

Stems from the top aNd breeds through the squad and down to the fans

Yup, I underestimated Widnes, for which I'm thankful. They fully deserved to win that and the trail of real thuggery at the end showed that Wigan have learned nothing from the Flower incident.

I'd try argue with you but you're obviously 'one of those'.

Even Phil Clarke said it was ridicolous to give a red for that as we'd see a few every game if those were worthy of a red. And that's Phil Clarke who can't bare to be unbiased to Wigan,

You could try but you'd be wrong, and that's why you don't want to.

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Plenty on the East side....

I watch a fair bit of RL, not sure I follow the view that we see swinging arm high tackles every game.

And I've not said it should've been a red. I'm just wondering why some people think Smith should've been given red but Ah Van not.

A mild trip? It's the reaction of a child. You see 6 and 7 year old kids do that when they are playing football and are getting battered.

Ah Van's tackle is a penalty, nothing more. As mentioned by the former pros in commentary, you see two or three of those per game, usually when a player is stepping or threatening to break the line and the player instinctively tries to stop them. If that is a red card, fine. But they then have to send EVERY one that does that off and there was one a minute before on the Widnes kicker that wasn't even given as a penalty.

If we're giving red for that, a lot of games would end up with three or four off and would be ruined by it. Tackles like that tonight are not thuggish acts, they are the desperate and instinctive acts of players in a defensive line under pressure.

No I agree neither should be red. Think yellow both. Smith not really nasty but it happened AFTER the play had ended so it more serious really in that aspect. Ah Van, he clatters around the head but it looks a genuine attempt to smash him ball and all but mis-times it.....given the new rules where yellow cards are going to be used more then it was a poor decision to go red.

deary me

Ah Van, penalty and sin binning max. It wasn't malicious and was no different to other high tackles committed in that game, like the Farrell high & late shot in the Widnes kicker that didn't even get a penalty.

You can keep calling it a trip all you like, but it's not, it's a kick. It's obvious to everyone it's a kick. To try and call it something else is just daft.
I like Smith but a deliberate kick is a red card. The fact Child only went for a yellow shows how completely he'd lost it during that game.

Agree - both yellow.

If it was after the play ended why were there not 2 kicks at goal?

It wasn't during the act of scoring the try.

It's only an 8 point try if you are fouled in the act of scoring, in this case the try had been awarded so that's play over. Otherwise where does it end? If the goals is kicked and then a fight breaks out on the halfway line are you going to come back and have another kick?

But regardless you never ever see them these days despite plenty of opportunities to award them.