I could see that happening. Another thing that has made me giggle since we won on Saturday is the notion that 'the WCC won't happen again' and the 'Aussies won't want to come over here ever again' after the controversy.

What do you think makes the WCC stronger as a concept, Saturday's occasion or the pre-season challenge as it was labelled last year? FWIW, last year's WCC attendance was the lowest since 2000.

Saturday night was a huge win for rugby league; you only need to see how much Fox Sports are dissecting it.

https://youtu.be/BDD6m5ZgJL8?si=TRYvdfkhbuOO1ODl Good take IMO from the Australian podcast 'bloke in a bar'. Acknowledge the poor decision but give Wigan their props.

https://youtu.be/BDD6m5ZgJL8?si=TRYvdfkhbuOO1ODl Good take IMO from the Australian podcast 'bloke in a bar'. Acknowledge the poor decision but give Wigan their props.

Phil Gould (obviously) and Greg Alexander both saying the ball was short of the line and ending their argument there. I think guys like that are failing to acknowledge the ball does get to the line because they then wouldn't know how to complain about a robbery. Is it a double movement? that's the decision but he doesn't lift his arm and normally the attackers body is behind the ball and not in front, so the ball slides in towards Wardles body and there is an argument to say it's the defenders force that moves it. It was a very unusual occurrence and one that I cannot remember any examples to compare it to.

When I watched it a couple of times on the big screen live I said double movement. Still think that's probably right with Wardle dragging the ball into his body as opposed to promoting the ball away from the body as you usually see. But the decision wasn't what was probably right - the video ref needed evidence that the original decision was definitively wrong.

As for Liam Moore's original decision, I heard one pundit (maybe James Graham) say he made an assumption...but that's the rule. Refs have to make a decision one way or the other even if they don't have a clue.

Ref shouldn't have given it as a try then really. In fact, this needs to stop immediately in my opinion and any VR decision for a try, then the VR decides and the VR only.

It just creates a 'cop out' because of the on field decision. If you don't know. just pass it up and hold them accountable.

My opinion ? I thought Wigan were fantastic, and the brilliant defense won them the game. Wardles try was never a try in the memory of man. The Penrith try on 80 mins had more chance of being allowed but there is no way I can discredit a side from that type of performance. It was magnificent. Take your luck and enjoy the ride !!

I've watched that bloke in a bar podcast and they speak loads of sense, so fair play to them for that but they do also speak some nonsense regarding the referring. Questioning why he would send up the Wardle one as a try and the May one as a no try is bonkers. He does that because he can see the ball on the line for Wardle one and you can't see the ball down at any point for the May one. They're just facts and it's the VR who should get the stick for the Wardle one.

All the talk of Field and French being great worries me greatly! Even talk of Harvie Hill being somebody to target. It's the price you pay I guess but we'll need to do what we can to fight off any raids on these lads.

I can't change my opinion because we've benefitted from it, the ref sending it up as a try/no try should've been binned ages ago. If they had sent up the 2 decisions without a try/no try call hanging over them I think they both get given as no trys tbh but I think we deserved a bit of luck as you say.

Don't try to reason with Stu M. He's upset because Peet doesn't keep mentioning Saints and concentrates on his own players instead, unlike Wellens who constantly mentions Wigan when their team wins.

Oh, wait a minute....

Anything Phil Gould says can be dismissed out of hand. He despises British RL and always has.

It's disappointing to hear the more considered Brandy getting in on the act, but then he was a Penrith star in his day, so it's probably a struggle for him to be objective.

As an aside, wasn't it good to hear Frano Botica and Martin Offiah referring to Wigan as "we" on the BBC coverage. Once a Wiganer, always a Wiganer

I tend to agree about the rule that the on field ref has to express a view either way. But just as he doesn't know he has scored, he doesn't know he hasn't either so he has to guess at what he thinks is most likely.