DaveO wrote:We need to start to treat the system with the contempt all other clubs seem to do. Pleading not guilty or getting found guilty then appealing does not seem to carry any risk of increased bans.
Every other club seems to do this and get away with it. We should too.
Absolutely right - doing the right thing and being gentlemen about it is getting us nowhere. Time for a go at plan B
I did think when the club came out with its comments re Lima and accepting the ban it was doing so that when the system failed as it has done here it could take the moral high ground and expose it for the ludicrous sham it is. Or maybe in the vain hope it would be fair and consistent.
Given it is certainly not the latter IL needs to take issue with what has gone on.
Yeoman struck players on 3 separate occasions in the match. Likewise Radford ran in and escalated the so called send off foul into a mass brawl. Do the RFL actually watch the whole match
On the RFL website its one of the Headlines "Tomkins Brothers Banned" like its some sort of achievment.There are no headlines about other players being banned.RFL ARE TOSSERS.
As I said in another post - and others are saying the same thing: when is IL going to stand up for Wigan?
I have lost any confidence I had in the RFL. It seems to me that the players and supporters are now subservient to the Mandarins in Red Hall.
There is an old saying, "Is the dog wagging the tail or is the tail wagging the dog?"
Others have said it before, including me, that none of this would have happened if Prancin "Porky" Ganson had refereed the game correctly.
I just hope that this latest kick in the goolies will make our players even more determined to win.
Noticed on Boots n all that Barry McD said that the refs are being told to reward attacking rugby rather than defensive rugby.
Who had the best defence last season? Rather than other teams having to change to adapt, RFL get the refs to penalise defensive teams i.e. Wigan.
What did Ganson do when Hull FC were continually roughing our lads up? Nowt. He lost control until our lads had had enough, and then penalised our team by reducing us to 12 men.
Can't wait to see how the ref handles the Hudds game for us on Friday! Barry McD described it as the best attacking team against the best defensive team. No prizes for guessing which team will get penalised the most, eh?
Shaun1967 wrote:
They've sorted that out.
He now doesn't have one.
Do you think Madge will appeal?
We should appeal, but probably won't. We are the only club to accept the rubbish coming out of Red Hall.
look at this nonsense from the RFL disciplinary page
Case Number ON/115/11
Name Andy Coley
Club Wigan
Shirt Number 10
Match Wigan v Hull FC
Competition Engage Super League
Date 13/03/11
Incident considered Dangerous contact in 58th minute (Fitzgibbon)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player grips around ball and chest, not neck, no crusher or unacceptable risk of injury, penalty sufficient
Now I highlighted the bit in bold, if that is true, then surely it should read "Penalty decision incorrect" not "penalty sufficient"?
You're bang on with this. They argue that their brief isn't with hindsight, to rule on the refs original decision but is merely to judge if deliberate foul play took place. However they say firstly that the tackle was legal but then contradict themselves by saying penalty sufficient.
What I'd say should happen is the ref in question should then be taken to task by that idiot Cummings.
josie andrews wrote:
It was Radford Kooch, but not sure if they/he "appealed" & it was either reduced or just the fine in the end!!!
Thanks for that Josie I thought it was he the cowardly swine. He of exceptional character (my arse)and endearing smile. The double standards abound within Red Hall of whom I have just emailed with my inner most thoughts.
Kooch,
I'm sat on a hotel balcony in Mexico watching all this play out. Maybe I've had too much Teqilla but I could have wrote the script for the decisions and I'm not even in the UK. Radford hit Bailey on the floor and got sent off. He was then banned for one match with the following quote from the commitee:-
"The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury." - 7th September 2010.
So what they've quoted in the justification for letting him off this time is a blatant lie. How do they sleep at night?
Hope your enjoying your time in Mexico you lucky so and so. My Brother-in-law recently came back from cancun whilst we slaved away running his pub. He to was a lucky so and so. Enjoy.
Funny but sadly also very true 
