Disgusting

[cpwigan]

The problem is that your fate is sealed before the hearing. The disciplinary panel (to the best of my knowledge includes Colin Clarke) was clearly instructed to make an example of Terry. It's happened before and alas it will happen again. Players are unable to get a fair hearing due to prejudicial media coverage / comments and pressure from the RFL hierarchy.

The Leon Pryce incident is no different to that of Terry on Gilmour. identical player in terms of temperament too. Pryce was clearly premeditated too given his altercation with Sykes less than a minute earlier.

I really hope the club take a strong line on this. For the last 2 or 3 years weve taken everything lying down and it has got us nowhere.

[ChrisA]

He cant moan, and I dont see why people think the punishment is unfair, what he did was deliberate and career threatening and has no part in our game. Cry all you want, he got what he deserved.
The only gripe is whether the RFL are consistent from now on, but as far as what he got, he deserved it.

[robjoenz]

ChrisA posted:
He cant moan, and I dont see why people think the punishment is unfair, what he did was deliberate and career threatening and has no part in our game. Cry all you want, he got what he deserved.
The only gripe is whether the RFL are consistent from now on, but as far as what he got, he deserved it.

Totally agree ChrisA, that's exactly what I was trying to say (only more concise). It's not a case of us being hard done by, the punishment fits the crime and those complaining that it's disgusting remind me of Cas fans last season thinking there was some big campaign to get them relegated. The only problem with this is the RFL maintaining this hard line which doesn't appear to be happening yet.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:
I hate to be the one to break this to you but there are different laws for RL and real life. The RFL have less stringent rules to follow whereas the law is extremely strict.

Well sentances have been increased on appeal in real life. The prosectutuion can now appeal what they consider a low sentance and it goes before the home secretary (I think).

That isn't relevant however because as you say this is RL not real life.

In RL the rules are quite clear and they say if you appeal any punishment can be increased as well as decreased on appeal.

So why are people surprised and shocked that this has happened?

The whole incident has been high profile in the media so unless Newton could prove he was not guilty there was no way the RFL was going to back down and appear weak.

He admittined guilt for the Gilmour tackle so there wasn't a hope in hell he would get that ban reduced.

He was definately guilty for the Long incident so just why did he appeal at all?

The fact they have been inconsistent doesn't make any difference to how they were going to play Newtons case and inconsistancy is a different issue. It is not grounds for reducing Newtons ban.

Newton was guilty, the RFL acted within their rules to increase the ban so that is the end of it in terms of the rights and wrongs of his ban.

I am more annoyed with Newton than the RFL.

Newton was stupid to appeal, stupid to commit the offence and with any luck is now a stupid Bradford player rather than a stupid Wigan one!

If he is stil a Wigan player we start next season a man down before a ball is kicked yet again.

Yet again our chances of that all important good start are reduced. All because Newton could not keep his temper and then was daft enough to appeal when he had no grounds to do so.

Is it too much to ask to start a season without missing a key player for months?

I reckon that now his guilt has been confirmed if he isn't already gone from the club they club should investigate if they can sack him for disciplinary reasons.

Dave

[GeoffN]

DaveO posted:
The fact they have been inconsistent doesn't make any difference to how they were going to play Newtons case and inconsistancy is a different issue. It is not grounds for reducing Newtons ban.

Dave

True, but it's certainly grounds for doing something about the inconsistency for future hearings. In this hypothetical "real life", judges/magistrates have guidelines regarding the severity of sentences they are expected to impose for individual offences. The NRL has a similar system, which is published on their website, so everyone can see how the punishment was calculated. The RFL seem to have an arbitrary system whereby the ban is affected by media coverage, opposition coaches' statements, public perception of the player's reputation (as distinct from his actual disciplinary record, which the NRL do take into account), and severity of injury caused (which is not, or at least is not supposed to be, a factor). It's easy to why the latter is the case, since identical 'tackles' will vary in effect depending on the players involved - if it had been, say, Fozzard instead of Long, I suspect it would have been a much lighter penalty, although that it not supposed to be the case.

[thegimble]

MrsLam posted:
Am sorry but extending his ban to another two matches is pathetic and is showing the RFL for what they are. Completely incompetent and inconsistent. It's a joke, now he can't even question a decision? It could have been left as it was or reduced but instead it goes the other way and he gets banned for another 2 games. It's not for the good of the game before people give me that, it will definitely be interesting to see what happens to Mr Pryce now.

As you say if they are not consitent now then Newton can do them under equal opps. As if anyone gets treated differently now the disciplinary comittee will be in real trouble.

What happens on Fri if a Saints or Rhinos player makes an awful challenge will they do as they always do turn a blind eye as not to spoil the GF or will they do the proper thing and suspend the player. Bet it would be the first thing i mentioned.

If they turn a blind eye then Newton can take them to them to the court of abbitration which is a sports court and would prove that the process was faulty if he was banned and someone else let off.

Or he could go to an employment tribunal and the same process would be followed. Those are the only 2 options availble to him.

I do agree with lenghty bans but they must be accross the board i guarantee you if we were in the playoffs hed have got a lesser ban.

Both would take into account previous disciplinary records of which Terry does not have many.

[cpwigan]

Maybe I'm totally missing what some of you are trying to say BUT the whole situation is disgusting because his treatement is not equatable with the treatment handed out to other professional players. As a teacher if I or my school are found to exercise disciplinary measures unfairly then I face the sack / the school faces being disciplined itself. If any sphere of life whereby you enforce discipline, FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY are the key requirements.

In this example HOW can they be?? Nobody is arguing Terry is not guilty what they are arguing is that two cases that occured at the time or since have seen two players escape scot free. Why then has Terry been treated to strictly? His fate was sealed before his first hearing THAT IS WRONG

You do realise that in a legal court you can not dispense justice unfairly, likewise in any other profession you cannot BUT Rugby League, you can do whatever you like.

The NRL have it correct. Set bans for set offences with weighting for previous record and pleading guilty or not guilty.

The RFL is a joke

[chorleywarrior]

I'll tell you what is disgusting,Terry Newton smashing another players face in and then whinging because he got caught out!!I'm a big fan of Terry's but the top and bottom of it is if the average Joe Bloggs in the street did that to somebody at "Work"First of all you would be sacked on the spot and then you face crimminal charges for Assault I personally am surprised the Club are'nt taking any action against him aswell,just because he's a top Rugby League player does not give him the right to behave like that infront of thousands of young kids!!
He was caught out simple as that,he should accept his punishment and so should all you lot who are defending him!

[cpwigan]

Chorley Warrioor, don't disagree but then why did Leon Pryce who clearly went at Sykes with the intention of hurting him, it was actually far more obviously premeditated get no case to answer? How do you explain it?

[mrs_carney]

Newton didnt intend to cave longys face in.