robjoenz posted:
I suspect he will have used the heavy conditions in his defence. It was 60 minutes into the game, he will have been fatigued and blamed that. The tackle was dangerous and high, no stiff arm though. If you want to hurt someone you go with your arm straight and stiffened.
So basically you are justifying the one match ban by making excuses for Wilkin. I guess you would have to do that to keep up your unstinting blind support for the authorities when it comes to refereeing and discipline eh Rob? After all they are always right in your eyes it seems.
To be fair Wilkin isn't a regularly nasty player and the ban is probably about right. I'm just glad he's not playing.
I must admit for the first time in maybe 2 years I think we've got a decent chance of winning SH on Friday. The bookies don't agree though and give Saints between -6 and -10 on the weekend coupon!!
Banksy posted:
It doesn't matter if Wilkin doesn't have a bad record the punishment should be assessed on how bad the tackle was not the player who did it.
But they're supposed to take previous offences into consideration; that's partly why Newton got such a big ban.
I think that’s stupid because one match ban isn't going to stop Wilkin from committing them again, if he was given a much larger punishment he would be very cautious.
robjoenz posted:
I suspect he will have used the heavy conditions in his defence. It was 60 minutes into the game, he will have been fatigued and blamed that. The tackle was dangerous and high, no stiff arm though. If you want to hurt someone you go with your arm straight and stiffened.
So basically you are justifying the one match ban by making excuses for Wilkin. I guess you would have to do that to keep up your unstinting blind support for the authorities when it comes to refereeing and discipline eh Rob? After all they are always right in your eyes it seems.
Dave
Blind support would be if I hadn't provided you with possible reasons as to why he didn't get the punishment people seem to think he should have got.
I suspect that will have been the defence he used.
jinkin jimmy posted:
Nice reply, Dave. TBH I have given up trying to argue with Rob but am pleased others are able to post more challenging arguments than I!
What a boring place this message board would be if everyone patted each other on the back and agreed about everything posted.
I was merely playing devils advocate. I am positive that there are reasons as to why he was given a 1 match ban and not more (or less). I refuse to accept the theory that the RFL lean towards Saint Helens because there is no reason why they would. However, I appreciate that it is easier to come up with conspiracy theories when you don't have the complete picture.
jinkin jimmy posted:
Nice reply, Dave. TBH I have given up trying to argue with Rob but am pleased others are able to post more challenging arguments than I!
What a boring place this message board would be if everyone patted each other on the back and agreed about everything posted.
I agree!
I was merely playing devils advocate. I am positive that there are reasons as to why he was given a 1 match ban and not more (or less). I refuse to accept the theory that the RFL lean towards Saint Helens because there is no reason why they would. However, I appreciate that it is easier to come up with conspiracy theories when you don't have the complete picture.
I'm not necessarily saying that; all I'm saying is that, yet again, it demonstrates their inconsistency. It's easy to give examples of very similar offences that have been punished much more harshly, even with players that have a better previous record than Wilkin.
