Yeah I'll give you that 100%. To be fair you've argued with Wigan fans over the part in bold so thats not in question.

I'd start him on Friday (he might have to anyway given the injury situation) as a reward. I like what Dupree and Mago are doing off the bench but the lad really helped us nail that game down on Saturday. He looks like he's physically and mentally far more ready for first team rugby this year than he did last year. He didn't let anybody down last year but he looked understandably a bit tentative (certainly in comparison to the lad who dominated academy packs week in week out) but you could tell in the pre season games that has gone now and he's ready to push hard for a place. It would be a great story if he could see off the masses of competition and gain a regular first 17 spot. I do think he's talented enough to give it a real crack (don't ask me who'd miss out though).

If I had I guess, I think you're right about French. He'll almost certainly have interest from over there and if he gets a half decent offer he'll go. But like others have said, I'm not sure if he'll get any offers as as a first choice #6, and his size will probably put most teams off having him as a first team full back or winger. I'm not sure what sort of offer he'd get as an NRL squad player and how that compares to him staying at Wigan, but it wouldn't shock me if we're offering him the best contract come the end of the year.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... cecdcce0a5 Bevan admirers starting to hype him up now.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... cecdcce0a5 Bevan admirers starting to hype him up now.

There is a piece on Field in the SMH as well. It’s to be expected in fairness. I watched the pre conferences online from after the game and French was in with Peet. They both spoke openly about wanting to go to Vegas next year, so it didn’t seem a given that French won’t be here.

For what it's worth my overriding thoughts on the matter are that it just highlights what a stupid system it is to have a referee basically guessing a decision on field which then massively influences the video ref. It's crazy - if the on field ref doesn't know then he shouldn't be forced to guess. In this instance Moore literally couldn't see the ball and had to walk around a pile of bodies before making a judgement. How can this be seen as a logical process?

It's pointless giving my thoughts on here about if Moore should've gone try or no try and why he did what he did. But what I will say is that if you take away the ref's call and ask every referee in the country to act as video ref, view that incident and make a call purely on what they've seen, then not one of them will give a try. That's my opinion. But in putting it on the video ref that he has to find concrete evidence to overturn what is essentially a guess, the system is massively flawed and in this instance Wigan have benefited. Let's be honest, if that try was given against you, you would be absolutely raging.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Penrith one at the end was definitely a try so have no arguments about it not being given, but if Moore is giving the atttacking side huge benefit of the doubt with the first one then he should again with the Penrith one in my opinion because I can't understand how he has seen more evidence of a try in the Wardle one than the one at the end. But again, that's where the system is so wrong. The on field ref is just having a guess and massively leading the video ref in one direction.

Whilst I'm at it, there was a forward pass for Leemings try too and the mistake from Moore on the ball steal is amateurish. He missed a blatant high tackle on Field late in the game as well.

As for the game itself Wigan defended brilliantly for most of it and took their chances well. Penrith were making much more ground, especially first half and spent more time in the atttacking 3rd but your line defence was excellent. The French pass for the Miski try was exceptional and you were unlucky with what would've been an amazing try with the scrum play.

Fiinally I am genuinely happy for Matty Peet. He is one of Rugby League's good guys and in the brief dealings I have had with him away from Rugby he is a top class human being. I find it impossible to dislike him or say anything negative about him which is rare for a Wigan coach

That last post has just reminded me- and something I forgot to metion.

A part of me wanted that French try to be given. One that it was a superb piece of innovation and a pre-planned move. And secondly because then Wigan would've won fair and square which would have been easier for me to accept rather than the Wardle non-try.

There is a photo in todays League Express which shows the ball on the try line for the Wardle try. The only reason it could have been overturned was for a double movement and I don't think it was.
There is no way that the Penrith try could have been allowed, Moore was in the perfect position and had the best view. He was right to send it to the video ref though for conformation, there would have been uproar if he'd disallowed or given it without reference, remember when the Saints no try at Wembley wasn't sent to the video ref and the fallout from that?

He got the ball steal wrong, but also the head shot on the Wigan player in the last five minutes.

I've also seen a photo of the kick for the French try with a line drawn accross which appears to show him to be just onside. We'd have to have the VAR technology from football to be 100% sure, they don't always get it right and I don't think we'd appreciate waiting five minutes for the decision.

I don't agree there is a single image or piece of footage that shows the ball on the line for the Wardle try. Nor do I believe that anny of you would accept it should it have been given the other way.

We won't agree so no point going round in circles on it. Like I said the overriding issue for me is the system and it's something I've been saying for years. Wigan have massively benefited from a ridiculous way of coming to a decision.

Next to nothing has been made of that incident and I think that's wrong. They kept going on about international rules and both feet needing to be behind the ball but even so, it was extremely tight and in Superleague they don't even bother having a second glance if it's as tight as that, they just quickly give the try and move on. I watched the replay yesterday and the VR has great eyes if he could give that as conclusively offside on one view. I sense he expected the backlash from the Wardle try when looking at that.

I'd have genuinely had no issue with the French one being given.

If you want to split hairs on it I agree, there isn't an image that shows the ball on the line but there is a clear image of it on the floor and it is 100 certain that the line has to go through where the ball is sitting (unless the bloke who painted it on was bladdered), so you're either jumping on it being a double movement or it's a try.

The system of sending it up as a try/no try we can agree it. It's daft and has been since day one.

I am not jumping on anything. I don't think at any point Wardle had the ball on the line, I think he was short and there was also an arm underneath. I don't actually think the ball was on the floor.

But like I said, we don't agree so it is what it is. I just hope lessons are learned from it and they do away with the ref's call. Moore is forced in that incident to make a guess. Had he not done then the outcome would've been different, I'm certain of that. Big games shouldn't be decided on blind guesses.