Salford v WIGAN

[Caboosegg]

As for Bateman if all is true, this is Wigan rugby league club not Bradford working mons shitouse academy he'll be sent on his merry way and rightly so, Wigan have standards I don't give a shit how good he's been he's not irreplaceable by no means.

How anyone can say that given the leeway and second chances Hock and Flower were given by the club is beyond me. Wigan's "standards" were plain to see there.

If Bateman is sacked the only standards on show from Wigan will be double standards.

How?

the Flower incident was against another player on field from a different club, it would have damaged the Wigan name to the media but do you think this would have had any impact of the team moral long term?

If the rumours about this incident are to be believed one player has assaulted another player, this will effect team moral, in a situation like that the player at fault should go not the player who is better.

example of incidents that have would have serious moral effects on a team are Carney and Ferres. both clubs did the right thing instead of choosing the better player.

then again everything is still rumour and if the other story about it just being damage to the gym is correct then the player in question should be disciplined but not let go.

[Panchitta Marra]

As for Bateman if all is true, this is Wigan rugby league club not Bradford working mons shitouse academy he'll be sent on his merry way and rightly so, Wigan have standards I don't give a shit how good he's been he's not irreplaceable by no means.

How anyone can say that given the leeway and second chances Hock and Flower were given by the club is beyond me. Wigan's "standards" were plain to see there.

If Bateman is sacked the only standards on show from Wigan will be double standards.

How?

the Flower incident was against another player on field from a different club, it would have damaged the Wigan name to the media but do you think this would have had any impact of the team moral long term?

If the rumours about this incident are to be believed one player has assaulted another player, this will effect team moral, in a situation like that the player at fault should go not the player who is better.

example of incidents that have would have serious moral effects on a team are Carney and Ferres. both clubs did the right thing instead of choosing the better player.

then again everything is still rumour and if the other story about it just being damage to the gym is correct then the player in question should be disciplined but not let go.

There's been lots of rumours about the rumoured assault Dave, and also strong rumours about personal things supposedly said to a player before the rumoured fight started, and also how it's rumoured the supposed fight started in the first place.
There's always two sides to a story and not often as straight forward as we think.

[Wiganer Ted]

This was a good win for the club.
Many players missing and a week they won't want to repeat.

From the outset the team went for a fast wide passing game which brought the first try. The incident where Burke and Powell were laid out and taken off caused disruption and the team didn't settle down until Powell came back on.
How important is Sam Powell to the team/squad now?

A main turning point was when Salford went 10-4 up with all the momentum and got a penalty 20 out.
Dobson went for goal, misssed and from the 20 mtr drop out Matty Smith's kick confused the Salford player who took it dead meaning a goal line drop out. We scored off the next set to go 10-10.
It was a turning point when Tautai dropped the ball with a daft ofload when being tackled by 3/4 players. They got possession and scored off that set. From being 23-10 in front and in total control suddenly it was 23-16 with 10 to go and Salford were now flying and Wigan nervous. Another dropped ball by Mossop and they were in again 23-20. Thankfully we saw the game out but it went to the very last play.

I thought Mossop tried hard and stats say 34 tackles which is a decent shift. He also had to change his shirt when he was recieving treatment for a cut to his mouth.
Smith was MOM by a mile as he ran everything for us. He's so much better with Sam and Williams around him. Him and Sam are the two on field captains/managers.
Cut out the daft offloads and Tautai would be outstanding.
He had a great game until the error, Waney took him off immediately.

A good win and the team is playing better each game now.

[OJ]

Excellent well balanced post cherry.pie. A good read :eusa2:

[fozzieskem]

Decent performance i suppose given the nonsense of the week,though i do feel Wane should have just come out and said that Bateman wouldnt play,why the cloak and dagger nonsense is beyond me but anyways much better as Wigan did seem to be falling over when facing teams of Salford's quality in the last couple of months.

Smith is back to a run of form now that Sam and Williams are back to lighten the load for him,he is a player i like Smith comes in far too much ridiculous stick from certain sections of the support unfair too in my eyes.

Flower looked deeply unhealthy by games end with his eye i doubt he will play this weekend.

[DaveO]

The trouble with that Dave O is that you are not comparing like with like.

In Flower's case, the assault took place on the field of play in the white heat of the opening exchanges in the Grand Final, when you would expect emotions to be running high. The fact that Flower was not sacked tells us the disciplinary panel found mitigating circumstances. I suggest the mitigation was also supported by a prompt and sincere apology, and a previously clean record.

Give over. It happened in the most high profile game of the season on TV! Flower was hung drawn and quartered in the media. Whatever your opinion on that, he was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by the RFL and by the club.

His punishment which was a ban from both club and the ruling body was so severe the word "mitigation" doesn't apply. He was slammed with a huge ban and fine for what he did.

Yet he is still here.

In Bateman's case the alleged incident occurred off the field in a low key social event sanctioned by the club. And Bateman has previous form from his time at Bradford. It was well publicised at the time of his signing that he had a reputation for drunken brawling, and his association with the EDL fitted the profile. Wigan took a chance on signing him, and unfortunately it looks like the wheels may have come off. He may well be lucky and be given a second chance, but if so I wouldn't bet a bean against a repeat performance somewhere down the line.

So now he was a bad egg all along? Really? Is that your justification?

What about Hock? His reputation existed while he was here. He got banned for TWO YEARS yet the club gave him a second chance.

The fact it occurred off the field makes nothing like as controversial or as high a profile as what Flower did in a GF or GB international Hock did with drugs.

Both were given a second chance.

The club has to make a judgement call on whether or not they can trust him not to offend again. This has to be done by considering this case on its merits, and not by reference to other decisions where the context was quite different.

Nonsense. The Flower and Hock incidents were far more serious and much higher profile.

I note you ignore Hock completely presumably because it doesn't fit your argument. He was a bad egg well before he did what he did, got a two year ban and was given a way back.

In both cases the club would have been more than justified in sacking both Flower and Hock on the spot and indeed received criticism from some quarters (and fans) for not doing just that.

If Bateman is fired off it IS double standards.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Shouldn't the IF be in capitals rather than the IS?
Given that he has not been, and may well never be, isn't it early to getting furious?

(as an homage)

IF WE GIVE AWAY OUR BEST PLAYERS AND ONLY SIGN WANE'S RELATIVES, THEN THAT IS A DISGRACE.

[Wintergreen]

The trouble with that Dave O is that you are not comparing like with like.

In Flower's case, the assault took place on the field of play in the white heat of the opening exchanges in the Grand Final, when you would expect emotions to be running high. The fact that Flower was not sacked tells us the disciplinary panel found mitigating circumstances. I suggest the mitigation was also supported by a prompt and sincere apology, and a previously clean record.

Give over. It happened in the most high profile game of the season on TV! Flower was hung drawn and quartered in the media. Whatever your opinion on that, he was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by the RFL and by the club.

His punishment which was a ban from both club and the ruling body was so severe the word "mitigation" doesn't apply. He was slammed with a huge ban and fine for what he did.

Yet he is still here.

In Bateman's case the alleged incident occurred off the field in a low key social event sanctioned by the club. And Bateman has previous form from his time at Bradford. It was well publicised at the time of his signing that he had a reputation for drunken brawling, and his association with the EDL fitted the profile. Wigan took a chance on signing him, and unfortunately it looks like the wheels may have come off. He may well be lucky and be given a second chance, but if so I wouldn't bet a bean against a repeat performance somewhere down the line.

So now he was a bad egg all along? Really? Is that your justification?

What about Hock? His reputation existed while he was here. He got banned for TWO YEARS yet the club gave him a second chance.

The fact it occurred off the field makes nothing like as controversial or as high a profile as what Flower did in a GF or GB international Hock did with drugs.

Both were given a second chance.

The club has to make a judgement call on whether or not they can trust him not to offend again. This has to be done by considering this case on its merits, and not by reference to other decisions where the context was quite different.

Nonsense. The Flower and Hock incidents were far more serious and much higher profile.

I note you ignore Hock completely presumably because it doesn't fit your argument. He was a bad egg well before he did what he did, got a two year ban and was given a way back.

In both cases the club would have been more than justified in sacking both Flower and Hock on the spot and indeed received criticism from some quarters (and fans) for not doing just that.

If Bateman is fired off it IS double standards.

So you are in possession of the full facts then?


[/u]

[Wintergreen]

Shouldn't the IF be in capitals rather than the IS?
Given that he has not been, and may well never be, isn't it early to getting furious?

(as an homage)

IF WE GIVE AWAY OUR BEST PLAYERS AND ONLY SIGN WANE'S RELATIVES, THEN THAT IS A DISGRACE.

Is Wane related to any of the players? First I know.

[The Yonner]

Dave O

I didn't mention Hock because I don't know enough about what went on with him to form an opinion.

However, I have been a trade union rep for 20 years, so I think I know something about how disciplinary cases are handled.

Every employer has a disciplinary procedure which should specify violence against another employee will be considered gross misconduct. The default punishment for gross misconduct is dismissal. The reason for having the disciplinary hearing is to firstly establish exactly what has happened, and to give the accused an opportunity to put forward arguments as to why the penalty should be something short of dismissal - this is what I mean by mitigation. Mitigation does not mean a not guilty verdict. Flower quite rightly was given what amounted to a Final Written Warning plus heavy fines and suspension. And I agree the club could have justified a dismissal verdict notwithstanding Flower's arguments.

When it comes to Employment Tribunals hearing cases for unfair dismissal, they do a test of reasonableness, specifically, was the employer's decision to dismiss within the range of reasonable responses to what had happened? In the Hock, Flower and potentially Bateman cases, the club has a decision to make - either to dismiss or give a second chance subject to a Final Written Warning.

I don't know if the club made wise decisions in the former cases: but as Hock was eventually moved on, maybe that was a sign they got that one wrong?

In Flower's case I suggest they probably got it right, based on the player's exemplary behaviour since the incident.

All I am saying is that the three cases have differences in what happened and the context in which things happened. Therefore the club has to once again make a judgement call based on the facts of this case and no other.

Furthermore, having studied the decisions of disciplinary panels and the Employment Tribunals over many years, I know the decision to dismiss can be mitigated by a prompt and sincere apology and a clean previous record. In Bateman's case I have no idea if he has apologised to the club or not, but I merely pointed out that it is on record that his previous record is far from clean, taking into account his background when at Bradford.

Sorry for this geeky response, but I am trying to play "devil's advocate" to explain to forum members why the club has said so little in public so far, and why it has a difficult decision to make.

The bottom line is: has the alleged gross misconduct destroyed trust and confidence in the player, which in effect destroys the contract of employment? So the decision will centre on whether or not the club can trust the player not to offend again.

I share the hope of most forum members that Bateman can convince the club he can be trusted, and he does get a second chance. But this has to be based on a consideration of the facts of the case rather than on a principle that everybody gets a second chance regardless of what they do.