Like many others I called it at the time and thought it could turn the game, which turned out to be correct, unfortunately.

With the momentum we had we had every chance of scoring and going 6-8 points in front. Even if we hadn't scored we may have got a repeat set (or more) and wore Leeds down even further. And even if that hadn't happened they'd have been fighting to get out of their own half. It's a no-brainer!

It was a stupid call and I didn't see the point in going for the 2. I said straight away they get a try with sinfield kicking they win the game and that's exactly what happened.

At that point in the game we had them on the rack and I'm confident we could have scored or atleast tried for a repeat/keep them down that end for another go. Instead we give them a breather and a chance to collect themselves.

As much as I'd like to think that video ref cost us that game, the decision to take the 2 was a big turning point.

Brisbane did it last week and it bit them on the and you did it last night. Bizarre call.

Fair enough, go for two if you're two points down to square it up or twelve points up to make it a three try game, but Leeds needed to score a try at two points down and still needed to score a try at four points down. It changed nowt.

I do think to was the turning point.

The only thing it changes is that it takes the opportunity away from the opposition to kick a penalty to level the scores but we should back our discipline to do that.

It'll haunt me for years that call. I've got a text I sent on my phone as we lined the kick up which reads (exactly)- 'that will turn the game, Leeds to win by 2'. If only I could predict the results when I've got a bet on!!

It also changes the end of the field you play in, ie. your own instead of theirs, all for a measly 2 points.

We did the same at Headingley in the league game, took the lead, went back down their end, got a penalty and IIRC dropped the kick off and didn't see the ball again for the next 20 mins.
It was a bad decision at Headingley and it was even worse at Old Trafford.

Exactly. Worst case scenario from us kicking to touch would have been us dropping the ball ten metres from their line on the first tackle.

At least we'd have been playing at their end.

I said a couple of weeks ago there have been three major issues this season: Ill discipline, poor game management and an inability to turn pressure into points. The discipline improved markedly during the 2nd half of the season but the latter two remained thorns in our side throughout, costing us several big games, including Saturday night. We score plenty of tries from deep and from kicks, but look clueless when we get a set in the opposition 20 and time and time again we take the wrong option when we get kickable penalties. The argument is always you should take points when they're on offer in a big game but as others have mentioned, unless your making a 6 point lead 8 or a 12 point lead 14, there's really no point and you're then risking a mistake bringing the ball away from your own half.

Taking the two to go 4 points ahead takes a penalty for them out of the equation. It means we can defend on our line and not have to worry about giving away penalties, because they will not kick. By going 4 points up we were backing our own defence.

I'm not saying I agree with it, because it was proved wrong, but that is the thinking.

I was shocked when you went for 2. You was on the front foot and playing some brilliant rugby. Further more Leeds' tough season looked to be catching up with them plus an extra 2 points wouldn't have had a big enough impact anyway.

You made one mistake on game management. Sinfield made none. Thats the difference.

It was the right decision at the time. It forced Leeds to have to score instead of giving Sinfield the option to slot over a penalty we would have no doubtedly given away and forced a possible golden point scenario! I'd have rather have lost the way we did than by one point in extra time.

People are using 20/20 hindsight. It was a bad decision because we lost. But there are plenty of coaches in the game including the top one, Wayne Bennett, who advocate taking the points that are on offer. Leeds have a pretty good defence and there was no guarantee we would score, in fact far from it. There was every possibility that those 2 points might have been the last score of the game.

Nice sweeping statement about hindsight many people round me in the ground were shouting for us to the put the ball into the corner and go for the kill, Leeds were rocking at the time what would have happened we will never know but one thing we do know is it wasn't the last score of the game and the two points were in the end ultimately useless.

I was one of them mate. But I've explained why they went for the two. Most teams would have done the same, including any team coached by Wayne Bennett, because they believe that you take the points on offer. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand. It was the correct decision at the time given the closeness of the game, and the opportunity to take the penalty out of the equation for Leeds. We had other opportunities to score, but didn't take them, so why would we have necessarily scored on that particular set?

Taking the 2? It's a 'hive mind' thing. It's swept all over the NRL like a rash in the last year or so. One team starts doing it, and everyone copies them. Now it's in SL too. I expect the fashion to change again next year. And yes, Wayne bloody Bennett can take a fair amount of the blame!

Also, the "It's a big game/final, so take the points on offer" argument we often hear: it doesn't stand up to much thought, does it? Sides want to win every game they play. Why should it being a "big" game affect a decision like that?

Dunno about youse guys, but for me one of the many pleasures of our game compared to Yawnion is the predisposition to go for tries rather than kick penalties. And long may that continue!

Wigan have never been a side wanting to take kicks; I hope they stay that way.