I got the impression that Ganson was working out the restart - i.e. double movement or was he in touch first.

Excellent performance

We were convinced he was looking for a way to give Benefit of Doubt.

Is it a double movement if the tackling player is in touch, over the line out of play?



Is that what he was working on?

Is it a double movement if the tackling player is in touch, over the line out of play?



Is that what he was working on?

The position of the tackler - in or out of the field of play - is irrelevant.



Hall clearly repositioned the ball after the ball carrying arm had hit the floor. The only thing that could have saved it from being a double movement would be if Charnley had lost contact with him and not completed the tackle, as Hall was still moving.



I can see why the ball steal on Hall was given. If you look at the motion of O'Loughlin's arm and the way the ball comes out, it has all the hallmarks of the ball steal. My first thought on watching it though was that he had attacked Hall's ball carrying arm and not the ball itself, would have to watch it frame by frame to see whether that was right or not.



The Peacock one was a clear forward pass from dummy half, but there are dozens of those that go unpunished in every game, usually due to the referee being at right angles to them and therefore not in a good position to judge and the TJs being fifty yards away and obstructed by other players in the way. That Tomkins and Hock decided to stop playing and wait for the whistle doesn't make it a good decision by the officials, but it compounds what would otherwise have been a fairly straightforward carry by Peacock into a try scoring opportunity which Leeds took well.



The Hardaker second try is just a howler by all concerned. While it's good for referees to back their own judgement at times, given the situation in the game and the potential for it to have touched a Leeds player on the way to Hardaker's hands, either Thaler should have given himself a second to think before making his decision or one of his TJs should have held his ground to bring the possibility up.



As others have said, Leeds got the wrong end of the stick on two potentially game changing decisions in last year's Final. What goes around, comes around.

If you look at the photos posted elsewhere on the forum, O'Loughlin's hand is shown to be on the ball, also I thought Tomkins collected the ball in or from an offside position.



On the Peacock forward pass, if the Wigan defenders hadn't been stood so far offside then maybe they would have had more time to react



Hardakers knock on was a howler!

Hardaker's second try was a really, really poor decision.



I thought O'Loughlin made a motion that looked very much like a ripping action omn the ball to dislodge it, only he'll know whether that was the intention, but it looked a penalty to me. Penalty try anyone?



The forward pass for Hardaker's first try looked, well, forward, but they happen several times a game. The real error was when Wigan stopped playing and allowed peacock and Hardaker to open them up.



We got the rub of the green from the ref, but I thought we very much deserved the win anyway. Better side on the day won.

It was O'Loughlin and that is proof enough for me that it was intentional.



I suspect it was he who taught Ratboy how to fake interference at the PTB, as O'Brotherinlaw does it almost every time I see him play.

Thaler did let a lot go but it made the game a lot more exciting instead of the stop start games you get for over keen refs.

Wigan do kinda bend every rule in the book too so was good to see a free flowing game.

Im not sure that is right,



I have seen many many a try given in a similar situation and the referee has justified it on the basis that whilst the player is in motion, they are free to pretty much do what they want, if the tackle isnt complete, it isnt complete.



What you seem to be saying is that there is a period of time between Hall's ball carrying arm hitting the floor, and his momentum stopping where he is tackled in that he cant make any kind of effort, but he also isnt tackled in that his momentum can allow him to score a try or be pushed in to touch, and if Charnley loses contact with Hall he somehow becomes not tackled again.



If Hall was tackled and couldnt make that second effort, then Hall was tackled and Charnley cannot make the second effort to put him into touch.



I think Ganson got that decision wrong, i dont think he was tackled, i dont think the tackle was completed so Hall was entitled to put the ball down.



He was however in touch.

look at the ball when todd flanders ripped it. its like a spinning top. it had to be ripped out