cpwigan wrote:
You cannot and would not gain a bigger ban Mike.
Yeah you can. TNs was increased to 7 months.
You really think that arguing and not apologising would have led to a shorter ban? And made us look like we weren't condoning the punch? I think that is a bit far removed from reality TBH.
NOT REALLY MIKE. You defend hard or you get walked over. Men and women defended properly can escape RL murder charges so a RL disciplinary hearing is easy in comparison.
You argued apologising was the right thing and it would be a good move. Clearly that has not been the case. The whole episode was contrived and we (our club / fans) allowed it to happen. Justice was not served from the the game itself to post match.
You do not need to condone the punch. You simply use the already proven extreme provocation and countless examples of far worse acts that resulted in much lower bans.
We have sold our own down the river and that is sickening. A dark day for our club and supporters to do that to someone who gives everything in Cherry n White.
St Helens chairman Eamonn McManus said: "The sport of rugby league should not be judged by this event, but by how it deals with it.
"We must assist (Flower) in any way that we can and accept him back into the sport. There is a person behind the player, and I am reliably informed by all that it is a good one. Fair play To the dark side on this..
sheepsteeth wrote:
he sold himself down the river CP. yes there were other factors but he's got to be responsible for his own actions.
crying foul would just make the club look terrible. potentially lose sponsors and money. IL has spent several years trying to improve our reputation and you want him to undo all that by defending the indefensible!!
He sold himself down the river? How on Earth do you come up with that? I didn't realise that by saying sorry he was also saying to the RFL because the game was televised, forget everything LH did, make an example of me, don't be consistent and give me 6 months!!
I think it's fairly obvious that I was saying he sold himself down the river by punching Hohaia when he was nearly spark out on the deck!
you also don't know that they've disregarded what LH we haven't seen the full ruling.
I can be as one eyed as most but all this poor old Wigan, we have been picked on baffles me beyond belief.
Clearly your one eye is closed because if you can't see the inconsistency and harshness of the punishment in comparison to LH, Westwood, Wood, Chase etc. I am baffled beyond belief!!
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
cpwigan wrote:
You cannot and would not gain a bigger ban Mike.
Yeah you can. TNs was increased to 7 months.
You really think that arguing and not apologising would have led to a shorter ban? And made us look like we weren't condoning the punch? I think that is a bit far removed from reality TBH.
NOT REALLY MIKE. You defend hard or you get walked over. Men and women defended properly can escape RL murder charges so a RL disciplinary hearing is easy in comparison.
You argued apologising was the right thing and it would be a good move. Clearly that has not been the case. The whole episode was contrived and we (our club / fans) allowed it to happen. Justice was not served from the the game itself to post match.
You do not need to condone the punch. You simply use the already proven extreme provocation and countless examples of far worse acts that resulted in much lower bans.
We have sold our own down the river and that is sickening. A dark day for our club and supporters to do that to someone who gives everything in Cherry n White.
how do you know apologising hasn't helped?
if he'd have gone your way of fighting it they might have given him 9 months.
cpwigan wrote:
You cannot and would not gain a bigger ban Mike.
Yeah you can. TNs was increased to 7 months.
You really think that arguing and not apologising would have led to a shorter ban? And made us look like we weren't condoning the punch? I think that is a bit far removed from reality TBH.
NOT REALLY MIKE. You defend hard or you get walked over. Men and women defended properly can escape RL murder charges so a RL disciplinary hearing is easy in comparison.
You argued apologising was the right thing and it would be a good move. Clearly that has not been the case. The whole episode was contrived and we (our club / fans) allowed it to happen. Justice was not served from the the game itself to post match.
You do not need to condone the punch. You simply use the already proven extreme provocation and countless examples of far worse acts that resulted in much lower bans.
We have sold our own down the river and that is sickening. A dark day for our club and supporters to do that to someone who gives everything in Cherry n White.
So you really do think that pleading not guilty in a no-win scenario would work. There is not a chance of that happening here simply due to the media attention. You can argue all you like about how thinks should be, but you actually have to deal with the situation as it is.
As I said, we can use this to hopefully achieve a far more consistent disciplinary process in the future, but right now we have no chance of doing that. No chance.
So really in terms of the games that matter it is 10 matches.
Will miss the Good Friday game with Saints. Not a coincidence IMO.
Exactly contrived and worse we are compliant in this ludicrous kangaroo court and sold our own down the river!
he sold himself down the river CP. yes there were other factors but he's got to be responsible for his own actions.
crying foul would just make the club look terrible. potentially lose sponsors and money. IL has spent several years trying to improve our reputation and you want him to undo all that by defending the indefensible!!
No it wouldn't and no we would not. Undo what? Wigan have always been hated for being too good. It has always been so. The RFL & other clubs want Wigan for its supporter base, the prefer an unsuccessful Wigan though and could not give a hoot by what IL does to massage their egos. Does any sane Wiganer care what the RFL and certain others think about Wigan? I do not.
cpwigan wrote:
Exactly contrived and worse we are compliant in this ludicrous kangaroo court and sold our own down the river!
he sold himself down the river CP. yes there were other factors but he's got to be responsible for his own actions.
crying foul would just make the club look terrible. potentially lose sponsors and money. IL has spent several years trying to improve our reputation and you want him to undo all that by defending the indefensible!!
No it wouldn't and no we would not. Undo what? Wigan have always been hated for being too good. It has always been so. The RFL & other clubs want Wigan for its supporter base, the prefer an unsuccessful Wigan though and could not give a hoot by what IL does to massage their egos. Does any sane Wiganer care what the RFL and certain others think about Wigan? I do not.
I don't care what other clubs think but maybe IL does, maybe he needs backing from other chairman for things we don't know about.
Rugby league in general struggles for sponsors so we don't want to give them any more reason to ignore us.
