I dislike Wigan's team and the way Wigan play more but Saints' fans are by far the worst set of fans for their taunts and jibes and songs aimed at us. I've no problem with that, it's called a rivalry, but we when we give it back in spades when we beat them and they cannot take it. They are the mardiest fans around (obviously this isn't all of them, many will be sound, but they have a huge amount who can't take it). They were calling us a disgrace last night because we sang songs at them!

The problem is that there are 2 sets of rules, one is the RFL rule book and one is common sense. We could all see that Lineham didn't have control when grounding the ball, so common sense = no try. But the roles require pressure from the torso, therefore it was the right decision.

Same with the Peyroux one. Because the RFL requires a guess from the ref, it is the right decision. If that goes up as a try, it would have been awarded. Thaler did what he could, took a guess and followed the rule book.

He got them both as right as he could given the rules he has to apply, the problem is the rules are so ridiculous, his hands are tied.

Never really took the "Eddie hates Wire" too seriously but last night the bloke was almost distraught about our win!

If sky are in any way influencing results of games by being too close to match officials then the game is corrupt. We know who sky wanted in the final.

cant see owt wrong with it that looks like its grounded with hand and torso.....the Peyroux one not even NASA can provide a photo of the ball anywhere near the try line.........

Hemmings was an absolute disgrace..... to Loudly proclaim that try "was never a try in a month of sundays" was a joke and I'm sure he stands there flicking V's at us when the cameras arent on him....

That's exactly right, the Peyroux attempt - the ball certainly looked like it was heading for the line but there was no image of it on the line. There needs to be definitive proof to overturn the on field. Lineham's looked a bit like he was spilling the ball but he had his hand on it when it touched down. The rules state "Grounding the ball means either holding it and touching it to the ground in-goal, or placing hand, arm or front of body between waist and neck (the front torso) on top of the ball which is on the ground in-goal". This is not to say we would not be up in arms if the situations were reversed, but hey thats sport. We had to cope when the Wigan player had his hand on the touchline and a try was given, Saints will have to suck this up like we did.

He was downright offended at the call that some fans thought it would be a disgrace if Saints and Wigan got to the final...

the FIRST and only rule of being a commentator is to be impartial. the fact he so clearly despises anything we do is so wrong....

The great Ray Warren retires this year and I couldn't tell you which team he has a fondness for and which he hates........... you know what he probably likes them all in equal measures...he has a genuine love FOR THE GAME and it comes through his commentary in club games and Origin.

I find myself wanting to win the final just to irritate this wiggy more than making History for Our Club

I've watched the game back the interviews with the coaches and after match inquest as to why Saints didn't win the game..
Hemmings and Stevenson where a disgrace they genuinely wanted Saints to win... They were very close to saying the officials were corrupt Stevo thinks the VR should be checked for every try ?? Lunacy ..!!
Phil Clarke actually spoke with sense and backed the officials up..

For all the stick Clarke gets, i actually dont mind him. He talks the game up with out being negative and is knowledgeable

I was sat more or less in line with the refs position but higher up. My first call was that the ball wasn't grounded so wasn't surprised at the on field decision, don't see how the ref can be criticised. I obviously didn't see any at the other end so can't offer an opinion.
I do think Saints were allowed to disrupt our game illegally by holding down at the play the ball and flopping.
And what was Walmesley doing that earned the penalty before half time if not cheating?

Quote: Barbed Wire "The problem is that there are 2 sets of rules, one is the RFL rule book and one is common sense. We could all see that Lineham didn't have control when grounding the ball, so common sense www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... /?ref=fbpg .... I would say that its his hand in contact with the ball, not just his torso. Common sense would say from this image .... try, everyday of the week

Quote: Barbed Wire "The problem is that there are 2 sets of rules, one is the RFL rule book and one is common sense. We could all see that Lineham didn't have control when grounding the ball, so common sense www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... /?ref=fbpg .... I would say that its his hand in contact with the ball, not just his torso. Common sense would say from this image .... try, everyday of the week

I take your point, however still images can be deceiving, if you look a couple of frames earlier (Sky Sports app has the highlights if you wish to have a look) you'll see Swift dislodge the ball, and Lineham doesn't really regather. His hand may be on the ball, which is sufficient in the rules, but it doesn't really constitute control of the ball.

One on one, Swift was well within his rights to attack the ball, problem for Swift was he couldn't knock it over the touch/dead ball line, he knocked it over the goal line and Lineham belly flopped on it, try.

Again with the "Eddie hates Warrington" talk
Not one person has mentioned that in the post match talk between him, Stevo, and Clarke, he said that Warrington have played the best rugby over the past 6 months and are the most deserving team to be in the grand final.

Anyway, I think the two controversial tries went the right way as far as the rules go, but for me the one I think we really got away with was our first try.
I was convinced it wouldn't be given once it went to the video ref, and even though he was checking for obstruction, he also checked the grounding and maybe it's just my eyes, but Gidley initially touches the ball down short of the goal line and then he and the ball bounce back up from the turf and momentum take him beyond the line but by then the Saints player had got underneath the ball and the ball never touched the turf again.
So for me I think we were lucky with our first try as I don't think the ball ever touches the turf on or beyond the line.

The two controversial tries, whilst I understand the controversy were correct in my mind.
Even if they go up to the video ref for Linehams try, they would have given a try on the field and there was no conclusive evidence that after the ball came loose that it ever touches the ground without either Linehams hand or torso in contact.

Saints try was unlucky for them, because if the ref gives try on the field it would have stood because there just wasn't evidence either way.
You can clearly see that the ball is just above the line and can only conclude that it would have touched it, but you never actually see, so you don't know if a Wire player got their hand under it or if somehow it doesn't touch.
In that scenario, the only option is for the call on the field to stand.
Harsh, but right.

But yeah, I am still amazed that the grounding for the Gidley try wasn't examined further.