I have to say I fully agree. I thought that he handled the game very well indeed. More or less every call that he made was spot on, obviously there are going to be the odd one or two that he gets wrong, but I felt that he got all the major decisions right. He even admitted his own fault in the second half when he changed his decision because of the touch judges call to give us a tap 20 instead of a goal line drop out. Most importantly, he didn't blow up for needless penalties which would have spoiled the game.

I thought he did OK and was pleased that he tried to let the game flow.

The one decision that did baffle me though was what appeared to be a Ratchford knock-on in centre field near the end of the game. I thought he'd knocked on, but then the ref seemed to indicate that the ball had been stripped but then gave a scrum (rather than a penalty?!) with H&F to us ..... then gave a differntial penalty to us at the scrum?!

Did anyone see the incident better than me and know what happened? Or did Childs just have a bit of a brain fart??

I think what happened was Ratchford had the ball stolen one on one, the Huddersfield player then knocked the ball on straight after stealing it, which resulted in a scrum to us. Then at the scrum, the Huddersfield prop struck at the ball, resulting in the differential penalty to us.

I thought the ref did ok last night. He's been rightly pilloried by fans for a good while but he got the majority of the calls right last night. A few did go our way (like the break they made in 1st half which came off Grix's knees, Patten knocked on but we got the scrum).

As for the Kevin Brown incident, yeah the linesman was at fault, the ref is unable to see everthing and if the linesman is going to come on, he should always raise his flag. Also Gleeson gave him a good smack in the tackle which caused the issue but of course there is no place for retaliation.

But Mr Childs indicated that the ball was stolen and from the club end the opinion was that there were two in the tackle, plus the obstruction in the middle of the field against us, Hudds appeared to do a blantant obstruction in the first half and he just turned away. But the game did flow and who knows if Sky would have picked our game we may have had a couple of more tries from the video ref, but they choose Wigan's 12 try one sided affair so good for super league publicity.

Would we? Remind which 'no trys' the video ref would of given then.

Would have been interesting to see a replay of when Cashmere went over but a knock on was given.

That's one Pev was referring to - Cashmere certainly seemed to behave like he'd scored and so did the Hudds players.

Cannot for the life of me understand why Sky picked the Bradford/Wigan game given that Bradford have been pummelled on a number of occasions this year, at the same time if I were Sky I wouldn't have picked our game either on the same basis. Would have thought that the Warrington game was the tie of the round really.

All in all think childs did ok as well.

But the liner definately needs a yalking too. He saw the swing from brown came on started to put his flag up and then just retreated. Would love to know why?

Stood right in line with the Cashmere incident. A definite knock-on.

I was stood in the middle of the shed and could see it was a knock on. Right call.

Not a bad game Mr Childs, thought linesmen came on/were consulted quite a few times (ok not the brown punch) which is something id like to see more of.

Must have better eyesight than me because I stand in the middle and couldn't see a thing Was kind of hoping we'd get some sort of benefit of the doubt call but according to quite a few it was definitely a knock on.

Re Childs, I thought he did alright. There was a little bit of the usual refereeing inconsistency that you see in every game with one team being punished for an offence and then the other team doing the exact same thing and getting away with it, but there wasn't anything massive that he missed that I can think of.

The touch judge who came onto the pitch and then backed off though

Child impressed me as he went frequently to the touch judges and in-goal judges.

The touch judge retreated once he saw it was handbags .. and the game had moved on. Don't imagine Child had missed the intrusion ... he decided not to ask as the incident was over and the game had moved on. Why stop for a "on report" that would have been meaningless?

He's called Child, not Childs.