Just seen the very brief highlights on Sky news in Africa. I have to say Lowes came across as a clown anybody neutral watching his post match interview to the sport of Rugby League would wonder what the sport is about. He ws vry poor indeed and potentialy damaging to the sport

Maybe he's on about Wakeys 2nd try which never was, because Silverwood gave Simon offside from a charge down (which he couldn't be)?

Game could have been over early doors.

he blamed the ref for having a bad day at the office, well if mr lowes had done better at his job and got Bradford to third place in the league they wouldn't have had to play yesterday

To be fair, Wayne Bennett wouldn't have got us to 3rd under the current rules. You'd need two SL clubs to completely implode for a Championship club to bridge the gap under the current rules.

Think it's fair to say we've pretty much imploded this year

Perhaps so and is probably why we came as close as we did to getting the result yesterday. In fact I still believe that squad we had yesterday was good enough so it was definitely a lost opportunity. I can't see such an opportunity in the future unless the rules are altered. Are Wakefield looking to strengthen considerably or are you looking at a similar season to this in 2016?

In the week leading up to the game Carter said if we stayed up we had some exciting signings lined up. Now his definition of exciting may differ from ours but let's wait and see

I believe that now we're making a profit, we will be building more this year which is a good thing and all down to MC and CB for all their hardwork and dedication while receiving flack from our own fans. Onwards and upwards!

Well that's definitely a plus for SL because you obviously haven't been competitive this year. Not sure where that leaves this new concept though. Probably in the garbage bin by 2017.

He must hate coming down to Belle Vue more than Eddie Hemmings.

Did anyone else remember when he was Warrington coach and he got into a right argument with a wakey fan. The more he argued the more Warrington crumbled???

There ll be yet another shake up to the system and we'll end up with 3 divisions of 10 teams with 1 up, I down between the leagues, probably in 2/3 years time.

I tend to agree with what you're saying regarding future opportunities, I said before yesterday's game that this would probably the best/only chance for a championship club to get promotion, I'd guess that now SL clubs have seen how close it can be the SL teams will now put a lot more into recruiting in an attempt to make the skills gap wider.
I for one would hate to be in the same position next year, yesterday was absolute hell, I never had a drink at the game, I felt too ill.

I don't know what disallowed try he was on about either, their first hit the corner post not the line, the second hit I think Addy's chest so knock on there. We had a close one when Arundel scored off the forward pass, I'd say that was the closest call out of the 3. Easy to blame the ref when emotions got high, I thought Silverwood pretty fair overall, perhaps leaning towards Bradford slightly but imo we just about deserved it overall. Most Bradford fans pretty gracious in defeat so big raps to them, all this whining from an odd few about we signed 11 players, load of tosh. Fair result, we gotta build now, I don't want to have to go through this again next year or even ever.

I'm not sure who the sorest loser is, Lowes or Rowley.

I think Lowes should be in charge of Leigh, because unlike Bradfords, their fans are bitter sore losers.

Just had a gander on their forum.

Lowes interview on BBC was better once he'd had a moment to think.

The ball wasn't played at so therefore Simon was offside.

I think he was alluding to the one where it hit the Bradford players shoulder & everybody stopped as it was a clear knock-on.

Ah! That'll be the one where Ali was illegally pushed away whilst going to pick up the ball. Clear penalty to Wakefield.

I don't get how they could say the ball wasn't played at when the Bradford player was running straight at the kicker.he turned his back to the ball so it dint smack him in his face so hows that not trying to stop the ball.

www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... ames-lowes What a contrast! What on earth could have happened for him to completely change his view? www.skysports.com/watch/tv-shows ... t-promoted

www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... ames-lowes What a contrast! What on earth could have happened for him to completely change his view? www.skysports.com/watch/tv-shows ... t-promoted

www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/bulls-tv Apology on here for his post match interview.

www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/bulls-tv Apology on here for his post match interview.

When you say "wasn't played at"
I know they said on Sky that it wasn't but as he was running towards the kicker with his hands up, personally I don't think dodging slightly is enough to say he didn't play at the ball.
He ran to the position and the ball hit him. He blocked the path of the ball on purpose.
He wasn't running that way just to have a wander up field.

Although if a player runs towards a kicker, however half-heartedly, it could be said to be playing at the ball, as he has created less space for the kick, which is evidenced usually by the ball hitting him, the difficulty is that the player could be trying to tackle the kicker, and the half-heartedness comes about because he realises he won't make it.

As for the Addy non-try, what upset me most was that our backs stood around looking at the ball, which allowed Addy to pick it up again: he'd heard no whistle, and we weren't bothered about picking it up. One, it created a risk of misreading it and letting Addy score (remember: Silverwood gave a try), and two, missed a chance of a freeplay, where we could have got further down field. We got away with that one.

Things that's often forgotten about that incident is Addy pushing Lauitiiti off the ball which would've resulted in a penalty anyway.

Edited for accuracy KK as I have misgivings that they would have disallowed it for that even though it was a clear push.

Playing at the ball or not when charging at the kicker I'm pretty relaxed about - it's rarely controversial and is usually well handled by the officials; I don't agree that if the ball hits the man as he runs in to disrupt the kick (usually by tackling the kicker) he's played at it - but they usually get the decisions right in terms of looking for an outstretched hand or foot etc.

I agree with you on the second point - play to the whistle and all that jazz.