Disgusting

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
My final word is very simple. Nothing was ever achieved that improved anything in the lives of people by sitting back and accepting your fate cap in hand. People achieve positive change by standing up and saying this is not right, it needs to be changed.

the British mentality these days is a mug mentality

Britain is far from mug mentality, it has now adopted the Compensation Claim mentality from America. Things happen and people look immediately for someone else to blame, 'fault never lies with yourself!'

Terry Newton admitted the high tackle and was given the standard punishment (3 games). Having held your hands up you cannot change your mind.

The Long incident; Newton admitted to a late challenge with the intention of Long hitting his own player. This also warrants a 3 game suspension. The fact the video shows him to follow through with the elbow makes matters much worse for him, the slap on the head puts the icing on the cake. The suspension reflects this.

Now there is the very separate issue of the treatment of other players. Pryce was headhunting Sykes and should have recieved a 3 game ban for it. The spear tackle was also dangerous and it is fortunate that Whiting didn't land on his head, he deserved a ban for that. This you will find is a totally unrelated incident and you will admit yourself the right punishment has not been given.

A positive change is the outcome everyone posting on this thread wants, allowing any player to get away with such violent conduct is very negative it sends out completely the wrong message and is the very reason we're all outraged at the RFL disciplinary's lack of consistency!

[the grinch]

here is the problem. if terry newton and wigan warriors complain and kick up a fuss and get terrys ban shorter then every player and club will do the same.everytime a player or a club doesnt like a rule or decision they can get it changed by stamping there feet. wheather the decision is right or wrong he now has to accept it. im not happy about it like everyone else but whats done is done.

[cpwigan]

Yep

The Jewish Nation should have done the same with the Nazis. Come to think of it why did we ever go to war

Black America should have done the same with those good old Southern boyz in white sheets

Nelson Mandela should have done the same

Those prisoners wrongly imprisoned for things like Guilford should have done the same

Poll tax riots, how silly

When something is wrong YOU STAND UP

[robjoenz]

Please answer this question cpwigan. Take this example:

A Wigan player takes a few dangerous high shots from the same opponent in a game, the final high shot hits him around the neck. As a result of the tackle his career is ended. The offender gets a 10 match ban, then takes it to court and has it reduced to 3 games. Would you accept this? Just answer YES or NO please.

Cheers

[cpwigan]

YES if 3 matches is the consistent number awarded
NO if 10 matches is the consistent number awarded

I'd allow a slight tarrif for previous record

BTW - Outcome is irrelevant IMO. Intent and potential dange is all you judge such things on. Just because you don't damage the opponent it does not mean your any less guilty

I'm not a YEs / NO type person Rob Sorry

I noticed nobody answered whether or not a spear tackle is more dangerous or can explain why Kearney = 2 matches and Terry = 3 when the challenges on Fielden and Gilmour are identical

If anybody wants a lawyer

[robjoenz]

Yes, a spear tackle can be more dangerous than a high tackle. Perhaps they ought to be considered just as bad as each other.

I do think that it is the intent and potential to injure is what is important, however, you implied from your post on the Long, Hooper and Albert thread that the extent of the injury as reported in the press had an influence on the punishment given.

Everyone has agreed that the disciplinary don't seem to be consistent. It cannot be denied though that Newton's hit on Long was a lot more calculated (he admitted the late hit) and malicious than Kearney's hit on Fielden, hence the longer suspension for that challenge.

If the boot was on the other shoe and it was a Wigan player injured at the elbow of a Saints player you would no doubt be saying Wigan ought to stand up for themselves as Saints always get away with things like Cunningham taking drugs, etc. Try taking your cherry and white specs off and look at it objectively!

[cpwigan]

robjoenz posted:
however, you implied from your post on the Long, Hooper and Albert thread that the extent of the injury as reported in the press had an influence on the punishment given.

Your correct I did indeed imply that the so called horrific injuries, the hysterical ramblings of SKY muppets and Anderson all contributed to the length of ban. The judiciary report alledes to that with reference to the injury and the need to send a message out to the public in particular.

My own personal view is that the outcome is irrelevant it is the intent and potential danger that matters. However, my view is not the one that matters, it is the RFL one that does and as such that was what my statement was about.

The game was really violent in the 50's and 60's. Attendances were at their highest and the players involved accepted these things happened by players from all teams and talk relatively fondly about such incidents. I would thus infer violence does not disuade people from watching RL and the game was better for players adopting a what happens on the pitch stays on it and ends at the whistle.

Anderson lied when he made comments regarding both the match and the challenges. Anybody involved in RL has seen far worse yet he implied otherwise. Likewise, Long acted like a spolit brat.

You know if the RFL were consistent then there would not be a problem. I'm not wearing my cherry n white specs just pointing out the hypocrisy and failing of the RFL and the need for people to demand change. Newton lmost becomes irrelevant al a Bosman if he brings about a significant change that betters the game.

BTW - Kearney v Fielden and Newton on Gilmour are the identical challenges

You know how damn silly the RFL is, check the link with the judiciary report. You'll find a case involving OCaroll from Wigan and a Hull player. O'Carrol got 3 matches for his part in a fight with the Hull player. The Hull player got zero. Anybody at Orrell on that day knows that the Hull player physically assaulted 2 players before that sending off, head butting on both occasions. Now even Larry, Curly and Moe could come up with a better judgement than that by the RFL

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
...The judiciary report alledes to that with reference to the injury and the need to send a message out to the public in particular.

No, you've misread it, the report says that such violence as this will not be tolerated. No reference to the injury. The previous paragraph ends with... the Committee thought it was a cynical, deliberate example of dirty play and he was quite rightly convicted of misconduct. Again, no mention of the injury in their conclusions.

My own personal view is that the outcome is irrelevant it is the intent and potential danger that matters. However, my view is not the one that matters, it is the RFL one that does and as such that was what my statement was about.

The RFLs statement on the serious injury to Long (mentioned once) highlight the risk of using the elbow.

The game was really violent in the 50's and 60's. Attendances were at their highest and the players involved accepted these things happened by players from all teams and talk relatively fondly about such incidents. I would thus infer violence does not disuade people from watching RL and the game was better for players adopting a what happens on the pitch stays on it and ends at the whistle.

I am assuming you are not saying voilence should be accepted here and that you are merely using the 50s and 60s as a comaprison. You are probably right, it might no put the fans off but you have to consider the players welfare. Unfortunately, the what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch does not fall inline with our Where There's a Blame Theres a Claim common attitude.

Anderson lied when he made comments regarding both the match and the challenges. Anybody involved in RL has seen far worse yet he implied otherwise. Likewise, Long acted like a spolit brat.

I'm not quite sure how Long acted like a spoilt brat? He wasn't happy with a broken face, the two posters on here that commented on suffering similar injuries didn't sound too happy with theirs either. I am also quite sure Long (and Albert for that matter) both suffered broken cheekbones or they would have played against Leeds. I think Anderson is getting desperate and it is not morally right for him to use them on Friday.

You know if the RFL were consistent then there would not be a problem. I'm not wearing my cherry n white specs just pointing out the hypocrisy and failing of the RFL and the need for people to demand change. Newton lmost becomes irrelevant al a Bosman if he brings about a significant change that betters the game.

It has been spoken about many times before, players have committed challenges that deserved suspensions and have got away with it, for example, Newlove breaking Dallas's face or Martin Aspinwall kicking a London player that got past him. Both deserved suspensions but neither recieved one. In this instance the RFL have actually done something right, they've given a suspension that will deter it happening again, they obviously conclude that suspensions in the past have not deterred Newton from violent play.

This ban will hit him and also the club for which he plays (us). I would have thought the idea would be that he'll be kicking himself for getting banned and not playing the game he loves. Also that the club would have a stern word about his conduct in an attempt to cut out the violent side and concentrate on the player we know to be so skillful.

As you agree; fouls should be judged on their intent and potential to harm and a two game ban like Kearney's would not have reflected the severity of his challenge on Long nor made the player think about his actions. This ban should have the affect of making Newton think about what he has done and he should be remorsful, instead it is he, not Long, acting like the spoilt brat thinking he's being badly done to.

BTW - Kearney v Fielden and Newton on Gilmour are the identical challenges

I agree, I was comparing Kearney and Newton's challenge on Long.

I can't comment on the Wigan - Hull Academy game, I wasn't there.