We got murdered at the ruck as usual against the better teams.

Wire players playing the ball much much quicker.

That’s why we lost the game not ref decisions.

I'm not sure that swings it much

.

As a wire fan I thought you were miles quicker at the play the ball. You lost cos you've got seriously NO attacking talent in your team(which is bad for the game!). Warrington were awful tonight and still won by 13 points. The game is in trouble

I thought we had improved over last few weeks, though that's not hard as we was shot with injuries and confidence. French covered up a lot of our lack of cut last season. Hastings is playing his nuts off but without cut off our other play makers it's a tough ask. I think you can carry one half with no running threat but not two or in our case three.
I don't think we got the bounce of the ball which happens but I do disagree that the call on Marshall didn't cost us a real chance of the win. I have not seen it since I got home but on the screen it was accidental contact to the head a clear penalty. I'm not a ref basher but no excuses for not going to the screen?
I thought we was well on top first half and they scored against the run of play.
We should have gone in with a two score difference or at least that's how it felt live, I always think it's different than on tv. Second half was 50-50 but the try changed the way the game went after that point.
I do not get Lams sub thoughts or structure.
If your on the bench and offer enough to get there and then if you also offer something that we miss badly(a ball player who can run) then why wait to the last 5 minutes to play him when games gone.
Is Clarke or Bullock injured because a twenty minute stint off either would have been more bennificial than having a hooker sat on the bench for 75.
I also think having our best half in the halves would be worth a go.
Can't argue with the efforts and I'm sure Zack Bateman Field and Smithies will add plenty to a team that for me though flat with the ball was not far off tonight . I have found us frustrating to watch for the last 5 or 6 seasons we make the easy hard and the hard impossible. We are not without talent but whatever we are coached makes us look like it!

I’m just baffled what goes on in the week on the training field because we certainly don’t look to have an idea of what the attacking game plan is out on the field. It’s hard to even describe what it is that we’re producing with the ball. It’s just 80 minutes of nothingness. No off the cuff plays, no set moves, no offloading game, no power game, just nothing, literally nothing.

It’s a shame that such a great player for us will leave this club after his time coaching us and when people mention his name in years to come, it’ll send a shudder through me and I’ll think of him in negative terms but it’s been truly dreadful to watch us these last few seasons. We’re averaging 15 points a game this season and that’s less per game on average than Leigh (who average 16 points). In our last 9 games we’re averaging 10 points per game. It’s is just astonishingly poor and whilst we may have a few injuries to contend with, it’s just no excuse for numbers that low.

Is it, though? The laws of the game state: A player is guilty of misconduct if he, when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

I certainly don't think what Charnley did was intentional or reckless. Careless? I think you could argue that either way.

For what it's worth, I think it should have gone to the video ref, but I'm not sure how he would have ruled it.

I think Wigan play as though they have practised moves in training and usually move it well from wing to wing.
Warrington didn’t seem to have a move in them but their strong athletic players are good at offloading the ball which creates chances.
Wigan have only one player who can regularly offload and we all know who he is.
Off the cuff play often creates tries and we can’t do it.
I was pleased with the effort and the game was entertaining.
The one failing was the appalling decision of the referee which killed the game off for Wigan.

Hicks was right on top of the collision between Marshall and Charnley.
Up until the replay after Lam slated Hicks, I too thought it could have had a VT run, however Hicks who was closest and saw exactly what we all saw with the close up after the Lam interview, that he was 100% correct not to go to the screen.
The close up shown Marshall moving towards the centre field and into Charnley’s shin with his head and Charnley unable to get out of the way.
Also what the video didn’t show, was Marshall thumping the ground just after he lost the ball. That was only visible from the stands as it was off camera as Mamo sprints clear.
So the question is, if the ref is 100% sure with what he saw, (and the reply backs up that decision), why is it, we are getting calls for, ‘it should have gone to the screen!”?
It obviously shouldn’t because Hicks was 100% sure and 100% correct.

He had hold of the ball until he was kicked in the head you dumb f*ckwit!

Nope. He was acting. Marshall thumped the ground when he lost the ball, as
Mamo was away. The camera followed Mamo and Marshall ground thump wasn’t seen on tv. Unless there is a 4/5 second delay getting ‘clearly knocked out’!?

He’s not stupid. Marshall milked it, he was not knocked out, after he lost the ball and thumped the ground, he suddenly became prone.

It's a penalty even if he was acting. He only lost the ball through contact to the head. I can't imagine many watching the prone player In that situation and if he wasn't injured with the game still only at two scores then going off. Sounds like your talking which reading this site regularly is so very unusual .