Somehow Carmont has been characterised as some sort of speed merchant in the light of this incident. Presuming that he would go 55-60m without anyone running him down is nothing more than a fairy story. Alibert/someone else's decision to give a penalty to Wigan way down in Leeds territory was a golden chance for Wigan they did not deserve.

But the Man of Steel-in-waiting blew it big time.

We will never know.

I also think that Maguires injury is more to do with an accidental kick to the knee from Carmonts trailing leg as he was being held back.

No, 1989. A decade before the RFL saved you by forcing you to merge with Sheffield.

Correct answer.

you'll be fully aware then that our nothing team has beaten wigan at wigan for the last 3 years i assume?

Fans of losing team, laughing at Huddersfield.

Teams like Hull can only dream of winning a play-off game.

You tell em brother

i agree.

wigans blatant cheating to win penalties was a disgrace.

they dished it out.........

agreed. The penalty should have been against mcguire and not donald who was already committed.

In that scenario they'd have kicked to touch and had 1 chance to kick an equalising drop goal.

Assuming they do get this (a big assumption) the game then goes to extra time where it's anyones game again.

They certainly werent robbed like some wigan fans will claim.

Donald was certainly committed. he was committed to taking Richards out. He realised he couldn't get to him before Richards kicked, and so decided he was taking him out.

McGuire's holding back of Carmont was far worse, though. Donald made his decision to take Richards out on the spur of the moment, but McGuire cynically made sure there would be no supporting player, who would have made it 2 on 1. I can just about accept Donald's "tackle" as illegal but one of those things, but I hate it when I see blatant and deliberate cheating like McGuire's.

If I had been the ref I would have given a penalty try, as one of the clearest cases of a deserved penalty try I can recall, not one but two professional fouls. I could legitimately do it, too, as all it needs is if "in the opinion of the ref a try would have been scored". Well, with Carmont free to support, in my opinion a try would have been scored.
(a) Richards could still have kicked, but would have had no need to.
(b) Richards could have followed his kick, if still kicking, and scored if not fouled;
(c) Richards could have passed to the supporting Carmont who would have had a walk-in.

Some would argue that a try "was not certain" but it doesn't need to be, as long as the ref can say he thought a try would have been scored.

And the clincher is that it is in the interests of the game that teams cannot progress by blatant cheating, which arguably Donald's actions, and certainly McGuire's exemplary cheating, were. It would be fair and just to give a penalty try, in those rare circumstances where such blatant professional cheating has taken place with the sole intention of trying to cheat your way to victory (as there is no way Wigan could have kicked a goal from where McGuire cheated).

The alternative is what we have - Wigan miss a kick from the touchline, and Leeds go through benefiting from their cheating. I know which I would prefer.

Donald fouled Richards. It is clutching at straws to claim "he was committed", unless as I have said in my earlier post you mean he was committed to taking Richards out.

However the ref does not have to give the McGuire penalty, he can play on and see if Wigan get the advantage.

The only good thing about incidents like last night, is that it highlights how bitter and baised some posters on here really are.

I agree entirely, I didn't think there was enough passion left in the Bulls fans but they have proved me wrong.

yes the maguire incident was irrelevant as donald was late on richards, if donald had play at richards feet instead of torso he may have got away with it, but it was too late in my book.

To be filed under the "embittered Bulls fan" file. If you were a ref using judgment like that shown in your post the game would be in a dire state.

And in Monsieur Alibert's, it wouldn't have. And unlike yours, his actually counts for something.

Especially ones from Wigan.

It would have been, Richards to Carmont, then Carmont to sam and no one off Leeds would have laid a finger on him. As for Wigan not deserving it, why? It was a great game, could have gone either way.

Anyhow, we are still in it and gonna win it.

You are Eddie Hemmings, and I claim my £5.

It's impossible to say.

I mean, you'd have banked on richards kicking that penalty from in front of the sticks wouldn't you?

Theres nothing to say richards (nervous wreck) wouldn't have blown the inside pass, or that cramont wouldn't have knocked on.

You can't just assume it would have ended in a try 50 metres out with onrushing leeds defenders.

In Monsieur Alibert's opinion Donald wasn't late on Richards, as he originally gave a scrum for the ball going into touch, Leeds head and feed.

It was only the intervention of the touch judge for the McGuire incident that forced him to ask Phil Bentham for advice - presumably on that incident alone - and saw his original decision on the Donald-Richards collision overturned by a majority verdict of the three officials involved.

Example of what im talking about



From reading this forum today I can safely say fans of MOST teams are acting like this. Quite a few from Hudds as usuall....

Though unlike most wigan fans, we know what we are talking about.

Any comments on J Tomkins kicking out?

All the fault of that big bully Danny McGuire for elbowing him apparently.

Although like Radford before him, Tomkins wasn't man enough to wait for the person he believed to have wronged him to get to his feet before lashing out.

ew!