Carlos had his arm round the ball to prevent it from being grounded. Clubb tried to spin, Carlos kept his hand on the ball as you would expect, and Clubb lost hold of it. It wasn't a strip. If Clubb had just remained on his back the ball wouldn't have come out and it would have just been back to the 10 for a play the ball. No brainer and I can't believe that every so called pundit in the studio thought it was a try.

Totally agree with this (& the posts above).

There wasn't a "reefing" motion from Carlos to dispossess Clubb, it was an effort from Carlos to control the ball/ball carrying arm in the tackle, and the ball became dislodged when Clubb tried to roll over to ground it.

There's no law that I'm aware of that says a defender cannot have their arm/hand on the ball, or have their arm/hand between the attackers body & the ball. To be honest, the whole debate over it discredits what was a very good, try saving, possibly cup-winning tackle from Carlos.

Yep, in fact the only person I have heard give credit to Carlos (although he still thought it was a try) is Wilkin.

whatever the rights or wrongs of the 2 disallowed tries,wigan should never have been in a position to score their final try,wigan players foot on dead ball line as he picked ball up.should have been a drop out.whatever we won,on to the next match.

Apparently even Radford said it was a try. He had a player mic on

The history books already show that it wasn't a try. Hull beat Wigan 18-14 and retained the Cup.

Now if we win the next six games, we'll also be Grand Final and Double Winners, with a tilt at the World Club Championship early next year.

So we go to Leeds and we go again.....

As a neutral I agree with the view on here of no try. You see these every week (not always near the try line) and they're given as a loose carry. The term "loose carry" is a bit harsh but the responsibility of the ball carrier to keep hold under pressure.

It was the patronising nature of Jamie Peacock in the forum afterwards basically saying that because the panel had 1000 games worth of experience then they were right and many people disagreeing were wrong

Sounds like just the one change for us from our last game with Garbutt returning to the bench with Keinhorst dropping out. Also sounds like young Walker will remain at FB with Golding missing out.

Walker
Briscoe
Watkins
Sutcliffe
Hall
Moon
McGuire
Singleton
Parcell
Cuthbertson
Ablett
Ward
JJB

Burrow
Garbutt
Mullally
Delaney

He backed Leeds to beat Hull in the semis, Wigan to beat Hull in the final, and Rovers to avoid the MPG last year. Fair to say his judgement is distorted

Players don't often make good refs (not sure who does but it isn't players )

The way I saw it was that Clubb was trying to extend his arm so that the ball moved from his chest area to above his shoulder as he attempted to twist in order to ground it. The defender was holding the ball (and Clubb's arm) in an attempt to prevent it being grounded. So the only player trying to move the ball in the tackle was the attacker - therefore not a reef, no try!

The term loose carry is a strange one and is open to interpretation.
For example a lightweight back trying to keep hold of the ball with say Minichelo trying to pull the ball out will only be one winner.
Is that classed as a loose carry or ball steel?
Most defenders will have hold of the ball to prevent an offload or a try.
If the attacker lets go on purpose does he get the penalty or try or is it a loose carry?
I thought Clubbs was a no try btw.

walker would be a better choice than golding wouldn't he? - he's always looked to have errors in him when i've seen him (golding not walker)

Did he actually think it was a try though?

When it happened I was certain it wasn't a try. In fact I was one of the few around where I was sat who was applauding the tackle, most went very quiet. But then as Child looked at replay after replay and I started to get worried it would be given I was sat there saying, "it's a try, he's going to say it was pinched." I didn't actually think that, but in those moments you become very pessimistic. So did Radford really think it should have been given, or was he just doing what I did? I don't think anyone asked him about it afterwards.

.... that's how I saw it - as the video ref drags on and on, you start to speculate on what the decision will be, not on what you think has actually happened.

If the ref had called a try, but asked if the player had lost the ball, would the video ref have said there is no evidence the ball was reefed out? Crazy rules.