What about Hills blatant double movement. Surely we should be posthumously awarded a pen

Barrie Mac said it wasn't a double movement, he just moved the ball towards the line.

Near certainty is a bit far. The exact terms are 'if in the referees opinion a try would have been scored.' on that basis it is subjective, but not as high a requirement as yours. So yes in my opinion a try would have been scored, I agree with the call. Manfredi would have been binned if it was only deemed a penalty by the way so do factor that in.

That’s what I thought it should’ve been, a penalty and a sin binning as I stated. Maybe it’s how they’ve always interpreted the rule and because for many years we saw very very few given but if somebody asks me ‘do I think he scores in that situation?’ I say ‘probably’ but it’s not like the ball is sat in the in goal and he just needs to fall on it. There is enough doubt there, enough things that can go wrong to go for a penalty and a sin binning. If the wording is ‘would he have scored’ then the best I can get to is ‘probably’ but I’m not sure that should be enough. If we look at Sam Powell’s early in the season, he has possession already and is literally in the process of grounding the ball. In this case the man is yet to take possession or make it to the in goal. He has to get through a couple of stages before getting as far as grounding the ball over the line.

End of the day he gives it so fair enough. It’s not a horror call but nor is the Partington one.

Edited for accuracy.

I've got to say that I've started to think Wigan did the dirty on O'Connor or something. His bias is quite remarkable at times. Other fans go on about Wigan bias because most of the commentary team once played for Wigan (understandable I guess) but Carney left on very bad terms, Barrie Mac is Leeds through and through, Phil Clarke is so busy trying to be neutral that he ends up being pro-everyone-but-Wigan and O'Conner..well, he's just bizzare! I swear if a Wigan player had his head taken clean off his shoulders O'Connor would complain about the blood on his shirt!

I've said it before, and much as I hate to admit it, I think the formulation they have in RU is much better. They have two options; if the ref thinks it's a try, it's "any reason I can't award the try?" and if he genuinely isn't sure, it's "Try ~ yes or no?". I think that is better than forcing the on-field ref to make a call, which then loads the dice for the VR.

Since when does the disciplinary panel rule on tries?

I also like that they have until the kicker lines up the kick to go the screen. It's almost like VAR but better

He was the same with the penalty try, literally just refusing to even entertain the fact it could be anything but. It took Bill Arthur, who had initially agreed it was cast iron, to then cast some doubt on it but O’Connor just shut him down. He didn’t do that with any reasoning but just talks louder and repeats himself that it’s a penalty try. There just seems to be zero willingness to even debate decisions with him sometimes when it’s come to Wigan. It’s all just black and white, knock on, penalty try, forward pass and so on and all against Wigan usually. I don’t think he has anything against Wigan as such but I think he’s going too far in not wanting to sound bias towards an ex club and it’s just pushed him the other way.

They don't and they didn't.