Ref's give them though. It gets on my wick when players are getting up and they just drop back to the floor.

Half of the time they're remonstrated by the referees and told to get up, half of the time they get a penalty.

Just so inconsistent.

With regard to the incident in question.... Has anyone watched Millington on the touchscreen after the game? I think he explains it absolutely perfectly from a player's perspective.

(by the way, if you've not seen it, he says it's a very harsh call)

But his insight on the matter is exceptional and hopefully going forward his opinion will be considered when they look at the rule

As fans, we want the refs to be invisible. The refs don't like being invisible, and too many think we turn up to watch a refeering display. Hicks is one of the worst for that. But the players are to blame too, for the constant attempts to fool the ref.

Perhaps they ought to stiffen the rules in relation to playing for the penalty? For example, sin-bin what are perceived to be deliberate attempts to con the ref. Or not give a penalty if it is perceived that a player has deliberately played for it (I'm thinking where players "stumble" over a player left prone on the floor at the play the ball).

I watched it and he showed a lot of class.
However, it is not a harsh decision. It was absolutely, without doubt, an incorrect decision......which changed the game.

I think that's the best he could've done.... Not sure players can go onto the touch screen and slag off an official's decisions, so calling it harsh wax being diplomatic I think.... As he went on to explain why it WAS an incorrect decision, without saying it on so many words.

Certainly changed the swing. Whether it'd have changed the overall result we'll never know.

It's difficult to get a black and white ruling over. You need to run in numbers to stand up defenders and the "unused" runners have to end up somewhere.

Defenders, when they're caught out of position as mcmeeken was, will generally go to a lead runner and stick their arms out for a penalty. It's just a desperate act. There's not a player who wouldn't/doesn't do that, and if you watch tries on the super league show, a defender almost always is appealing for something.

That being said, regardless of where tupou ended up, if they'd have run it on for 3 seconds they'd have seen that mcmeeken was never going to make up the lost ground, whether he was impeded or not.

It was pretty much the only play all night where Wakefield set up and exposed a problem in castlefords defence, and ironically they did it pretty much perfectly.

I wasn't correcting Millington on his "harsh" statement. He went way further than most players would.
I was correcting your use of the word.

I still don't think we'd have won.....but it would have put pressure on Cas rather than having us chase the game which changed the way we each played.