Disgusting

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
Was I a Wigan player and GB squad member I would pull out of the Tri-nations.

With an attitude like yours I doubt you would have been picked in the first place.

Sorry but you are talking complete nonsense. I am not quite sure how the discussion got to the stage of the club and its players spitting the dummy out in respose to Newton getting what he deserved but it is perverse.

Dave

[robjoenz]

Not sure if this has been in the media already but there is a statement from the RFL in League Express justifying Newton's ban. Newton apparently admitted he wanted to hit Long into his own player with his shoulder which is admitting a late dangerous challenge (and quite frankly a bit stpid IMO), the Committee decided that he followed through with the elbow also. They also comment that Newton "appeared to delight in clouting him on the head as he went back to his place."

They also comment... "I wish to introduce the player's record. It is impossible for it to go unpunished, so that other players know such violence will not be tolerated..."

Can't say we can complain really. I know people have said on here that the disciplinary are not supposed to take past history into account, but is this actually true or just something someone once decided (e.g. Stevo) and everyone has believed since?

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

They also comment... "I wish to introduce the player's record. It is impossible for it to go unpunished, so that other players know such violence will not be tolerated..."

Can't say we can complain really. I know people have said on here that the disciplinary are not supposed to take past history into account, but is this actually true or just something someone once decided (e.g. Stevo) and everyone has believed since?

I always thought past history could be taken into account and has been used to let players off lightly who have never had a history of violence.

If the RFL came out with the justification you quoted then he was incredibly stupid to appeal.

Dave

[robjoenz]

These comments are post-appeal but if they told him similar in his first hearing then I agree, he was daft to bother wasting the £200 appeal money (which he forfeits because he lost).

Yes, that rings a bell actually Dave, was Paul Cooke given a light sentence for head butting because he had been well behaved in the past?

I think it's good that the RFL have given their justification of the punishment. Hope they continue to do so in controversial situations.

[Fraggle]

The other thing with his appeal was the fact he also appealed against the 3 match ban for the Gilmour incident, which he'd originally pleaded guilty to and apologised for. That was just ridiculous, you can't say "yep, I did it, I'm sorry" one minute and then a week later say "actually, I've decided now that I didn't". The whole appeal was a waste of time, the increase in the ban was probably justified for wasting the time of the disciplinary committee and being daft enough to appeal against things he'd already admitted to, and as DaveO has said elsewhere, when you appeal you are asking for the sentence to be re-evaluated with the risk that it could be increased. I don't know who's advising Newton in all of this, I would assume it's the club but whoever is not really acting in the player's best interests. The threat of legal action is daft, particularly since he'd be in the dock already if he'd done either hit off the rugby pitch, and what authority would the Law Lords have over Red Hall anyway? The fact that the RFL are seemingly not being consistent with their punishments isn't really relevant, the appeal can only deal with the Newton case, not McDermott, Pryce, or whoever.

[AncientWarrior]

robjoenz posted:
Not sure if this has been in the media already but there is a statement from the RFL in League Express justifying Newton's ban. Newton apparently admitted he wanted to hit Long into his own player with his shoulder which is admitting a late dangerous challenge (and quite frankly a bit stpid IMO), the Committee decided that he followed through with the elbow also. They also comment that Newton "appeared to delight in clouting him on the head as he went back to his place."

They also comment... "I wish to introduce the player's record. It is impossible for it to go unpunished, so that other players know such violence will not be tolerated..."

Can't say we can complain really. I know people have said on here that the disciplinary are not supposed to take past history into account, but is this actually true or just something someone once decided (e.g. Stevo) and everyone has believed since?

You can see the full judgment and a precis of the role of the Disciplinary Commitee on http://www.rfl.uk.com/Templates/RFLDefa ... nt&uID=124

[robjoenz]

AncientWarrior posted:
You can see the full judgment and a precis of the role of the Disciplinary Commitee on http://www.rfl.uk.com/Templates/RFLDefa ... nt&uID=124

Cheers for that AW, very interesting read.

[cpwigan]

DaveO posted:

cpwigan posted:
SIY I was just arguing that Whelan and co if they could legally SHOULD stand up to the RFL and send them a clear message by withdrawing access to the JJB for internationals, cup semis etc and withdraw hospitality rights etc to RFL officials

Even Whelan isn't that stupid.

I'm generally out on limb here because I'm not terribly British in my outlook (stiff upper lip, grin/bear it etc) I also think you can / should pressurise weak organisations like the RFL. The likes of Jack Gibson, Bob Fulton, Wayne Bennett have always fought their corner.

And the motive for presurising the "weak" RFL is what? To make it cave in and become even weaker?

Dave

This is Whelan who took on GM Police. He does not need the money from hosting RL events bar Wigan and how does this income benefit us (Wigan RL)? It does not, we cannot spend it. What is the alternative, we back down. We did that once already when Cummings threatened the club if they appealed against a sending off. Twice the RFL have walked all over us when we have turned the other cheek.

We have a situation were a guilty player has clearly been treated harshly. He was treated harshly because his fate was pre-determined before any hearing. Somebody on high be it Cummings or Lewis instructed that 3 man body that Newton needed to be made an example of. His ban is totally out of line with what they have given out on and since the day of that hearing. Are we supposed to let that happen? When something is patently wrong you make a STAND

Why apply pressure? To ensure you do not get treated so unfairly again. Better still to force the RFL to introduce an NRL judiciary system. The best in the world have fought their corner. No one was better at it than Wally Lewis. What does it achieve, you can control who officiates your matches, it has happened, you can even get people sacked, it has happened.

Why not apply pressure? If we do not what happens? The RFL continue to act unjustly and corruptly and the game gets no better. Another Wigan player may suffer the same unjust treatment.

OUR club has lost a player, a key player for an excessive amount of time. NOBODY is arguing he's not guilty but his ban is out of line with RFL norm and WIGAN will suffer.

[cpwigan]

DaveO posted:

cpwigan posted:
Was I a Wigan player and GB squad member I would pull out of the Tri-nations.

With an attitude like yours I doubt you would have been picked in the first place.

Sorry but you are talking complete nonsense. I am not quite sure how the discussion got to the stage of the club and its players spitting the dummy out in respose to Newton getting what he deserved but it is perverse.

Dave

Oddly enough my attitude is no different to that of many fantastic rugby league players. Wally Lewis and his Queensland Team Mates brought down Terry Fearnley by applying exactly the same belief.

Routinely the likes of Fergusson, Wenger, Mourinhio stand their corner and fight for their rights.

What does your lame ass turn the other cheek approach achieve DAve? People wee on you

MrsLam: please don't use offesnsive language ta

[cpwigan]

Meeting of the Disciplinary Committee: 27 September 2005

Player: Terry Newton (Wigan Warriors)
Opponents: St Helens
Referee: I Smith
Adjudication: So far as the first incident is concerned, he only appeals against the severity of sentence, he admits that that was a blow to the head. The Committee accepted Mr Hill’s description of it as a left arm stiff tackle because that’s what it was, he had been thrown off the tackle once and no doubt out of frustration, he went back again and this time, we find that he deliberately struck Gilmour to the head with his left forearm. For that one incident, deliberate as we find it to be, and whatever happened to anyone else on that same evening (referring to McDermott), the Committee dismissed the appeal and found that three matches (and a fine of £300) was an adequate and appropriate sentence.

Have to laugh when they say anything that happened to anybody else is irrelevant. I'm guessing this was the basis of his appeal having pleaded guilty to this incident. How can it be irrelevant? Stephen Kearney commited exactly the same stiff arm (might even be the left arm too) so he should get 3 matches too if the RFL is FAIR and CONSISTENT