Jules wrote:Short or not, this is the current view or RL we are discussing.
Such comments are common place in Union areas before what happened in the GF and will be long after. The very same people making such comments are happy to see players trapped on the ground raked/mauled with numerous studs if said player is trapped on the wrong side.
99% of Union fans are clueless about League and that probably work the other way too.
Jules wrote:Short or not, this is the current view or RL we are discussing.
I am discussing the current view of RU fans regarding RL after Saturday night. Like I said punching, biting, gouging etc. has happened in both sports very recently!! Every one is entitled to an opinion regarding Flower I just hope the RU fans try not to take the morale high ground because quite frankly that would be embarrassing!!
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
I said 10 matches and thats what this ban equates to in realism. The 6 months is a PR stunt to make it sound a lot worse than it actually is.
I think 10 is about right given the circumstances which a unless you go down the route of automatic bans you are always going to have to factor in. Had that punch happened on a non televised match or even a less important match you are probably looking at half of that maybe a bit more 6-8.
Hohaias ban is on the small side but as we have stated that is a seperate issue.
I agree with Mike arguing just makes it worse, we tried that with newton and the ban was increased on appeal. Thing is there its all semantics because i remember seeing issac luke playing for NZ against England twisting Ranghi Chases knee in the tackle, i think he was awarded a penalty against him. Looking at it logically that twist done with enough force could be career ending, a punch is hardly likely to be. Thats life though, if you analyse everything to the nth degree you can find a problem with every single minutes of play.
I think Bens ban is fair
Hohaias is lenient
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
pete&kaz wrote:I thought he would get approx 10 games. It works out as 10 league games, the WCC match and the friendlies. Probably about right. (Stands back and waits)
I agree, as they say there was a fairy name of Nuff.
It would be nice Pete for the Supporters Association to grow a set. Can you not see the paradox in celebrating / promoting a self confessed violent ex player but remaining silent when a clean player is treated so shabbily by a Kangaroo Court.
CP my comment is my own and has nothing whatsoever to do with The Riversiders.
That is just my opinion which like you I am entitled to.
WF1985, you state that Ben received more games because it was televised and if it had not been then he would have received less games. You then say Ben's ban is fair, surely that is a contradiction as whether the game was televised or not should not affect the punishment handed out!!
LH's ban is nothing short of disgraceful rather than lenient, it is impossible to only get 1 game or should be by the letter of the law for what he actually did as you say on national tv with the whole country watching. So if there is consistency surely Hohaia should have received more games like Flower did because it was televised, oh hang on a minute no don't be silly!!
ONE RULE FOR ONE ANOTHER RULE FOR ANOTHER!!
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
So cp, TBWs and others arguement seems to be summed up as this.
We should have complained in the media at length and during the discaplinary meeting. We should have visibly been protesting that LH should have been banned longer and BF was provoked.
And they think that the outcome would have been better - i.e. a longer ban for LH and a shorter ban for BF.
I disagree. The ban would have been longer and could even have been shorter for LH. The club would have looked like we were condoning the second punch regardless of whether we had been or not - thats what the press would have reported. The only upside of this would be to keep RL in the spotlight, but that's not an upside for Wigan RL.
We had a damage limitation situation which we handled as well as was possible in the circumstances.
We now have to have new resolve to fix the problems that other posters have rightly highlighted. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the general point about the massive lack of consistency in the discaplinary. But the way you play you hand is not to get all angry and go off half cocked. Make a plan, get some support, execute it at the right time - and ultimately force the RFL to reform. Thats how real operators work. You're not going to achieve that by shouting at them right now when we have not got a leg to stand on.
Mike wrote:So cp, TBWs and others arguement seems to be summed up as this.
We should have complained in the media at length and during the discaplinary meeting. We should have visibly been protesting that LH should have been banned longer and BF was provoked.
And they think that the outcome would have been better - i.e. a longer ban for LH and a shorter ban for BF.
I disagree. The ban would have been longer and could even have been shorter for LH. The club would have looked like we were condoning the second punch regardless of whether we had been or not - thats what the press would have reported. The only upside of this would be to keep RL in the spotlight, but that's not an upside for Wigan RL.
We had a damage limitation situation which we handled as well as was possible in the circumstances.
We now have to have new resolve to fix the problems that other posters have rightly highlighted. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the general point about the massive lack of consistency in the discaplinary. But the way you play you hand is not to get all angry and go off half cocked. Make a plan, get some support, execute it at the right time - and ultimately force the RFL to reform. Thats how real operators work. You're not going to achieve that by shouting at them right now when we have not got a leg to stand on.
No Mike, my argument is that we shouldn't have to argue a case, consistency should be a given. These so called experts should be able to see exactly what punishment fits the crime, they have video evidence to back up every single incident, it's not like a murder case when usually only the victim and perpetrator are present with no witnesses.
For me it is just COMMON SENSE.
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
