A site for fans of Wigan Warriors RLFC. News, views, statistics, profiles and more all contributed by supporters of Wigan RL.
https://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/
I didn't see Trent playing with someone else's balls, must have missed him knock on with one of them!!!robjoenz posted:
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!robjoenz posted:So one idiotic thing makes him a poor player then...Matthew posted:
He's either a pervert or a cheat - if that's what you think constitutes a good player...
...in that case Barrett is a poor player because he knocked on last week against Bradford.
No... doesn't work like that.
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.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
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?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: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.
IF he had committed such a serious crime then, no, it wouldn't affect how he played rugby throughout the season.butt monkey posted:Bit like saying....if he murders some one - don't let it detract from the "great" season he has had at Saints! :eh: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 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?robjoenz posted:IF he had committed such a serious crime then, no, it wouldn't affect how he played rugby throughout the season.butt monkey posted:Bit like saying....if he murders some one - don't let it detract from the "great" season he has had at Saints! :eh: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.
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.
What award did he win? Mr. Integrity? Fair player award? No...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's that got to do with anything?Nice one - and to think that you actually want to control games!