Matthew posted:
He's either a pervert or a cheat - if that's what you think constitutes a good player...
So one idiotic thing makes him a poor player then...
...in that case Barrett is a poor player because he knocked on last week against Bradford.
No... doesn't work like that.
True referee logic!
One players action hurts no-one physically (apart from his sides chances of winning) and is part of every game of RL. The other sexually assaults another player - twice; which if had been done in public would have seen him signing the sex offenders register - bit of a difference Rob, if you can't see that then maybe that's why you think ganson is impartial?
I don't think pryce is a poor player - he's not. But he is an incredibly dirty player - probably the worst in the game at the moment. I didn't like him at Bradford and even were he to be twice as good as Barrett I wouldn't want him at Wigan - because of that.
For me, being a technically good player is no excuse if you spoil the game by being THAT dirty. If it wasn't that bad; maybe he should try eye-gouging next and maybe a spot of biting too? Players who do things like that have no place in our sport - it's tough enough without having things like that.
You maybe be able to turn a (ganson-esque) blind eye to what he does - I won't
"And Martin Offiah, trying to make some space, now then..." - Ray French, Wembley 1994
------------------------------------------------
Interviewer: So that obviously means that you're not going to St Helens and you're not going to Leeds?
Frano: I don't know why I would ever want to go to St Helens or Leeds
------------------------------------------------
Matthew posted:
One players action hurts no-one physically (apart from his sides chances of winning) and is part of every game of RL. The other sexually assaults another player - twice; which if had been done in public would have seen him signing the sex offenders register - bit of a difference Rob, if you can't see that then maybe that's why you think ganson is impartial?
I don't think pryce is a poor player - he's not. But he is an incredibly dirty player - probably the worst in the game at the moment. I didn't like him at Bradford and even were he to be twice as good as Barrett I wouldn't want him at Wigan - because of that.
For me, being a technically good player is no excuse if you spoil the game by being THAT dirty. If it wasn't that bad; maybe he should try eye-gouging next and maybe a spot of biting too? Players who do things like that have no place in our sport - it's tough enough without having things like that.
You maybe be able to turn a (ganson-esque) blind eye to what he does - I won't
Of course I can see the difference between the two, my point was that one incident doesn't detract from a player having a good season.
robjoenz posted:
Of course I can see the difference between the two, my point was that one incident doesn't detract from a player having a good season.
So what if it had happened in a public place away from the rugby field - would you still think that he had had a good season and was a good player?
"And Martin Offiah, trying to make some space, now then..." - Ray French, Wembley 1994
------------------------------------------------
Interviewer: So that obviously means that you're not going to St Helens and you're not going to Leeds?
Frano: I don't know why I would ever want to go to St Helens or Leeds
------------------------------------------------
robjoenz posted:
Of course I can see the difference between the two, my point was that one incident doesn't detract from a player having a good season.
Bit like saying....if he murders some one - don't let it detract from the "great" season he has had at Saints! :eh:
or
I suppose you are a woolly minded liberal who thinks that no-one actually commits any offences - there are "circumstances" behind all crimes, that make "animalistic" behaviour "natural" or expected.
robjoenz posted:
Of course I can see the difference between the two, my point was that one incident doesn't detract from a player having a good season.
Bit like saying....if he murders some one - don't let it detract from the "great" season he has had at Saints! :eh:
IF he had committed such a serious crime then, no, it wouldn't affect how he played rugby throughout the season.
Had he gone out every week groping balls, getting penalised and banned throughout the season costing Saints points then he wouldn't deserve it. As it happens he been instrumental for Saints this season, which is why I suspect he was given the award, regardless of how many balls he felt up.
robjoenz posted:
Of course I can see the difference between the two, my point was that one incident doesn't detract from a player having a good season.
Bit like saying....if he murders some one - don't let it detract from the "great" season he has had at Saints! :eh:
IF he had committed such a serious crime then, no, it wouldn't affect how he played rugby throughout the season.
Had he gone out every week groping balls, getting penalised and banned throughout the season costing Saints points then he wouldn't deserve it. As it happens he been instrumental for Saints this season, which is why I suspect he was given the award, regardless of how many balls he felt up.
So as long as he plays well for stains and doesn't cost them points with his "wandering hands" it doesn't matter what else he gets up to?
Nice one - and to think that you actually want to control games!
"And Martin Offiah, trying to make some space, now then..." - Ray French, Wembley 1994
------------------------------------------------
Interviewer: So that obviously means that you're not going to St Helens and you're not going to Leeds?
Frano: I don't know why I would ever want to go to St Helens or Leeds
------------------------------------------------
Matthew posted:
So as long as he plays well for stains and doesn't cost them points with his "wandering hands" it doesn't matter what else he gets up to?
What award did he win? Mr. Integrity? Fair player award? No...
Nice one - and to think that you actually want to control games!
