Come on, calm down please everyone.

Conspiracy theories are great fun but are not worth the paper that they are written on.

Fact. We played really well and went toe to toe with one of the most consistent teams in the division that has a brilliant defensive record and we nearly won.

Our disallowed try was contentious but that's the way it goes, as disappointing as it was on the night. By the way, I think that we have more than our fair share of 'rub of the green' incidents during the season which we have benefitted from. Coming back on the train from Wembley my family were surrounded by HKR fans who were totally convinced that they were victims of a refereeing conspiracy - They were sure that it was fact! They even had evidence! That's what sporting disappointment does for you.

For my money 5th position at the end of the season is great. However, we should have finished 4th and that is what is disappointing. The reason why we did not finish 4th is nothing to do with what happened on Friday night. It had everything to do with what happened the week before against Wakey when we utterly failed to put away a pretty mediocre Championship bound team. It was in our hands to do so, not the referee on Friday. Had we played that night with a modicum of cohesion and skill we would have put enough points in the bank to ensure that we could not have been overtaken by HKR, irrespective of the subsequent result against the Pies.

If we play against HKR in the play off game like we did against the Pies on Friday then we have a chance. Realistically, I think the season ends and HKR extract further post Wembley revenge upon us. Really, what is their problem that we beat them in the Cup Final?

[/i

What did they say on the train jack?

Hi Cokey. They said that Kendall and the linesmen were part of a conspiracy to deny HKR a win.

Apparently, there was a lot going around on their social media sites to say that the officials were under immediate post match investigation by the RL. This was all within a couple of hours of the game finishing.

Points of dispute:

1. Lam dropped the ball in the act of scoring under the sticks - no referral to the video ref

2. Penalty try should have been awarded for a deliberate foul by Lam on their player who was trying to run to the line to touch down the kick through after one of our players dropped it in a tackle close to our line in the first half.

3. Lam should have been sin binned for the offence.

4. Minchella was sin binned for what they thought was a legitimate tackle on Reynolds.

There was a lot of pointing at phones and social media websites by the HKR fans we saw. I suppose its all a question of where we all chose to get our 'facts' from.

Thanks for that Jack. I can't say that I agree with them, it just sounds like sour grapes to me.

Yes, they were bitterly disappointed with the result and they were looking for reasons beyond the obvious that their team had made crucial mistakes and that they had offered absolutely zip in attack after they scored their first try.

Let's face it, the sum part of their second half attacking comprised high kicks to our defensive right. Eventually they got lucky in what turned out to be their last attack of the 80 minutes but, a one play playbook looked clueless to me.

Again, it all boils down to how we all view the same game. For some HKR fans disappointment on the day with the result led to an evaporation of logic. Let's go for a far fetched reason for the result rather than scrutinise and accept their own team's shortcomings on the day namely, that they got lucky to tie the game in normal time and were then totally outplayed by Leigh in golden point extra time.

There have been some good points raised in this thread, but as usual I feel the need to express my opinion. The biggest bone of contention is the use of the video referee. From next season every game will have a video ref, so it is imperative that as a sport we get this right. Rugby Union is currently in focus with the World Cup being held in France, and to be honest besides the shared ancestry the two games are radically different, in laws and viewing pleasure. There is however, something that they seem to have embraced, which is the use of Video Referee.

"It is at present a requirement that the referee presents an on-field decision to the TMO which the TMO is allowed to disagree with if there is "compelling evidence' to do so. In this case the TMO advises that against awarding a try."
Despite there being little difference in the phrasing between the two codes, it is well understood that the Video Ref has full scope to investigate. Rugby365.com

In Rugby League, the on-field ref has to make a decision and then there is a search for comprehensive proof to over-rule or accept the original decision. In this case there was no proof for the absence of an event. This is like saying Religion is stupid because there is no definitive evidence God exists.

The task of refereeing is difficult enough, and is also highly subjective, so why not spend the extra time to get the result correct. At the end of the season, the impact of this one decision affects 5 teams. Every expert seems to agree that the try should have stood. Even John Bateman (former Wigan player) believed the Leigh try should have stood.
Regarding the non-interview with Adrian Lam, there appears to be have been a mix-up with timings and so there should be a retraction of some of the “Classy” “Childish” comments levelled at Derek Beaumont. When you only hear one side of the story, the narrative is skewed heavily.

The last point “This is a rugby forum not English grammar.”. An interesting sentence which even as a signed up member of the “pendants society” I will overlook. A forum is “A situation or meeting in which people can talk about a problem or matter especially of public interest”. To do so it is important that people are able to express themselves in a manner that other people will at least understand. Communication is a two-way process and for the majority of us that means using correct English and not text speak. I have previously refused to get drawn into correcting other people’s posts for bad grammar, spelling mistakes, wrong-tense and the use of “no” instead of “know” as one example. We all make the occasional typo, miss out a word in a sentence, I have no qualms about the use of split-infinitives having been brought up on Star Trek, but the issue of double negatives changes the meaning of a sentence dramatically.
We have a requirement if using the written form of English to make it as accurate as possible. I would like to share a recent posting on the Wakefield Forum.

“Hard to see anything other than a comfortable win for Leigh for me , I feel the fight had drained from our team a while ago (Cas game )as for me that was “Custard’s last stand“, and we failed miserably and ended up the whipping boys for our neighbours. I’m just going to watch these last two games without that knot in my stomach and a dry throat hoping amongst hope that we would stay in the top flight ,yet watching a car crash on the field unfold before our eyes”
Kettykat – Wakefield Forum

I can only assume that General Custer is rolling in his grave.

Yeah, golden point was interesting/nail-biting, when Hkr was given a penalty for a strip that wasn't, and they fluffed their big chance by missing touch, and going for a long drop goal and giving Leigh that all important 7 tackle set.

Sadly, Tom Amone has got a one match ban. Pity we don't (yet) have a reserves team to cheat the system as Wigan will with an identical ban for French!

We all so love the RFL's silly rules, don't we!

[sizeM[/sizeeddling [sizeR[/sizeuddy [sizeP[/sizerats

The last thing thr RFL want now is THE MIGHTY LEOPARDS at OT.

It just shows even more how rigged the game is towards the bigger clubs. DB is investing in this club only to see rules in favour of the bigger clubs. How much longer before he says, 'stuff it'. We have the match review panel banning and fining players every week. How long before the game becomes tick and pass. I still can't get over that Paul Vaughan ban. We need someone with common sense to give us our game back.

It's a simple rule tweak. A ban incurred after a first team game can only be served by missing first team games. Simples.

Toms ban overturned. 2.478515625:5