Gelling's interview said it all re the state of the video ref, and Bill Arthur doing hi nut over very very mild language way after 10 O'Clock. So refreshing not to hear an automaton bog standard interview.

Gelling is a real gem

Really enjoyed that, blood and guts game, lots of character in that Wigan side with so many injuries. Too much to do for Hull after that poor first half, great performances from Powell and Gelling for Wigan.

A real shame for Hull - thought they would go on to win when 18-16 up.

On balance the best team won tonight.
We created absolutely zilch in the first half and ultimately paid for it.
Credit to Wigan, while not always being great to watch they've been effective and toughed it out this year.
Still it's been a great season for us, got the Wembley thing off our back and been in genuine contention for all 3 trophies. Here's to next season!

Had Gildart been caught before the tryline do you think he would have stopped the play the ball and gone to the screen for the Hull try decision? If not it would have been in Wigan's interest not to have scored. Ive never seen this before where two tries were potentially up for decision. A first for a televised game?

You are just repeating what Eddie Hemmings said....pathetic !

OK, fair enough...sorry

No worries.

I'm more bothered that my mind is on the same wavelength as Wiggy Hemmings!

Should Mr Hicks have been asked to state try or no try over the Hull grounding. Given that he let Gildart run the length of the field and then said try on the field it would suggest that he would have gone no try for the Hull grounding. What would the video ref have done then?

I think he did say try for Wigan, no try for Hull (although strictly speaking he didn't need to as they are mutually exclusive; by explicitly stating try for Wigan he is implicitly stating no try for Hull). Thaler then took an age because he had to overturn Hicks. Had the on field decision been try for Hull it would have been much quicker as there definitely wouldn't have been any evidence to overturn it.

He did. I watched the replay last night and he said he had try Wigan and no try for Hull.

Going off recent decisions (Peyroux, Tierney etc) I've got no idea how he could say he was 100% certain that was a try after having 75 looks. Without the prejudice of the 'no try' decision I could have just about taken it being given benefit of the doubt but with that in mind, it should never have been given.

The rule needs scraping. Thankfully it didn't cost us.

Thaler clearly felt he was in a bind because of the on field decision, it looked a try but going by the letter of the law I'm not sure it was possible to overturn the on field decision because it's hit and miss whether you get a camera angle that conclusively shows downward pressure. It was the right decision in the end but only because common sense prevailed. Had we got the try instead of Hull we'd have been back to howls of "corruption" and the like. Glad we didn't reach the GF on the back of a decision like that.

The on field decision definitely needs scrapping though, I've said that from the start. It's an irrational policy to make the referee guess and then to give that guess such authority that most VRs can't overturn it. Bring back BOD and let the on-field and video referees both make the decision together, on-field ref has the final say.

I don't see how that try was given to Hull, the Wigan try was given on field which must deem Hull's try a no-try on field. So the VR needed to be able to say with 100% certainty that the Hull try was a try, you wouldn't need to watch the same try over and over again if you were certain it was a try.

The good news is that the result didn't hang on this try.