WiganWarriorsFans.com

gillysmyhero wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:Im not sure what all the viva revolution people want i mean youre all intent on saying how is such a traveisty etc but i havent seen much in the way of suggestions on how to move forward just how crap the current system is.

Just for the RFL to be consistent with the way they deal with incidents. Not to much to ask really is it.

Well yes it is. It is because 14 teams have 14 sets of fans who all see things differently. On top of that you also have a RFL panel who see things differently again. So everytime a decsion is made about a ban you are going to get some people who agree and some who dont.

If for example Flower got 4 games, 13 sets of fans would think that was an awful result and that the RFL were not consistent there.

For consistency there must be no human input so that means you would have to ban people on a set amount for set offences. That in itself has issues though because its still the referees interpreation of the intial incident that dicatates the automatic punishment. Plus say you make the auto punishment for punching 8 games, well if i were a player im not going to throw one am i, im going to get a 8 game ban so i may aswell give the guy a good hiding, and then if you retaliate or protect yourself you get a ban because you cant ban one person for an offence and not ban another

Its not as simple as you suggest

cpwigan wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:Ok CP then what is your plan of action how would you ensure that this doesnt happen again

1) Update the code of conduct for players

2) Update the disciplinary procedures

3) Significantly improve the officiating of RL

4) Root/branch investigation into the governance of RL

OR

WF Et Al can put their buckets of sand over their heads.

you have said absolutly nothing of substance here though, basically ive said how would you push things forward and change things and youve answered "id make it better".

Im sure the RFL state they do each of those items every year

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

gillysmyhero wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:Im not sure what all the viva revolution people want i mean youre all intent on saying how is such a traveisty etc but i havent seen much in the way of suggestions on how to move forward just how crap the current system is.

Just for the RFL to be consistent with the way they deal with incidents. Not to much to ask really is it.

Well yes it is. It is because 14 teams have 14 sets of fans who all see things differently. On top of that you also have a RFL panel who see things differently again. So everytime a decsion is made about a ban you are going to get some people who agree and some who dont.

If for example Flower got 4 games, 13 sets of fans would think that was an awful result and that the RFL were not consistent there.

For consistency there must be no human input so that means you would have to ban people on a set amount for set offences. That in itself has issues though because its still the referees interpreation of the intial incident that dicatates the automatic punishment. Plus say you make the auto punishment for punching 8 games, well if i were a player im not going to throw one am i, im going to get a 8 game ban so i may aswell give the guy a good hiding, and then if you retaliate or protect yourself you get a ban because you cant ban one person for an offence and not ban another

Its not as simple as you suggest

I disagree, I think it is very simple to improve consistency, I think it is very difficult to make EVERYBODY happy.

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

gillysmyhero wrote: Just for the RFL to be consistent with the way they deal with incidents. Not to much to ask really is it.

Well yes it is. It is because 14 teams have 14 sets of fans who all see things differently. On top of that you also have a RFL panel who see things differently again. So everytime a decsion is made about a ban you are going to get some people who agree and some who dont.

If for example Flower got 4 games, 13 sets of fans would think that was an awful result and that the RFL were not consistent there.

For consistency there must be no human input so that means you would have to ban people on a set amount for set offences. That in itself has issues though because its still the referees interpreation of the intial incident that dicatates the automatic punishment. Plus say you make the auto punishment for punching 8 games, well if i were a player im not going to throw one am i, im going to get a 8 game ban so i may aswell give the guy a good hiding, and then if you retaliate or protect yourself you get a ban because you cant ban one person for an offence and not ban another

Its not as simple as you suggest

I disagree, I think it is very simple to improve consistency, I think it is very difficult to make EVERYBODY happy.

Ok so what would you do to imporve consistency?

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

gillysmyhero wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:Im not sure what all the viva revolution people want i mean youre all intent on saying how is such a traveisty etc but i havent seen much in the way of suggestions on how to move forward just how crap the current system is.

Just for the RFL to be consistent with the way they deal with incidents. Not to much to ask really is it.

Well yes it is. It is because 14 teams have 14 sets of fans who all see things differently. On top of that you also have a RFL panel who see things differently again. So everytime a decsion is made about a ban you are going to get some people who agree and some who dont.

If for example Flower got 4 games, 13 sets of fans would think that was an awful result and that the RFL were not consistent there.

For consistency there must be no human input so that means you would have to ban people on a set amount for set offences. That in itself has issues though because its still the referees interpreation of the intial incident that dicatates the automatic punishment. Plus say you make the auto punishment for punching 8 games, well if i were a player im not going to throw one am i, im going to get a 8 game ban so i may aswell give the guy a good hiding, and then if you retaliate or protect yourself you get a ban because you cant ban one person for an offence and not ban another

Its not as simple as you suggest

The fans or the media should have nothing to do with the disciplinary process. Its supposedly independent. So you are saying that it was not fair and it gave that length of ban due to fans and media rather than the rules.

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:Ok CP then what is your plan of action how would you ensure that this doesnt happen again

1) Update the code of conduct for players

2) Update the disciplinary procedures

3) Significantly improve the officiating of RL

4) Root/branch investigation into the governance of RL

OR

WF Et Al can put their buckets of sand over their heads.

you have said absolutly nothing of substance here though, basically ive said how would you push things forward and change things and youve answered "id make it better".

Im sure the RFL state they do each of those items every year

You asked, I said what I would do. You are currently pretending everything is fine and burying your head in the sand. Obviously, those points would become genuine areas of substantial change but I have 5 minutes and I am not getting paid to do the RFLs job for them! Pay me half of what the Fat Controller receives and I will do twice as good a job as he does.

thegimble wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

gillysmyhero wrote: Just for the RFL to be consistent with the way they deal with incidents. Not to much to ask really is it.

Well yes it is. It is because 14 teams have 14 sets of fans who all see things differently. On top of that you also have a RFL panel who see things differently again. So everytime a decsion is made about a ban you are going to get some people who agree and some who dont.

If for example Flower got 4 games, 13 sets of fans would think that was an awful result and that the RFL were not consistent there.

For consistency there must be no human input so that means you would have to ban people on a set amount for set offences. That in itself has issues though because its still the referees interpreation of the intial incident that dicatates the automatic punishment. Plus say you make the auto punishment for punching 8 games, well if i were a player im not going to throw one am i, im going to get a 8 game ban so i may aswell give the guy a good hiding, and then if you retaliate or protect yourself you get a ban because you cant ban one person for an offence and not ban another

Its not as simple as you suggest

The fans or the media should have nothing to do with the disciplinary process. Its supposedly independent. So you are saying that it was not fair and it gave that length of ban due to fans and media rather than the rules.

I didnt say they did what i said was the fans belief of inconsistency is largely founded in what teams/players they like/dislike. Im sure the RFL believe they are consistent.

Im also saying that the stage and circumstances of the incident did have a influence on the punishment but the ban was within the "rules" as you stated he was graded at the correct level and the punishment was within that level.

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote: Well yes it is. It is because 14 teams have 14 sets of fans who all see things differently. On top of that you also have a RFL panel who see things differently again. So everytime a decsion is made about a ban you are going to get some people who agree and some who dont.

If for example Flower got 4 games, 13 sets of fans would think that was an awful result and that the RFL were not consistent there.

For consistency there must be no human input so that means you would have to ban people on a set amount for set offences. That in itself has issues though because its still the referees interpreation of the intial incident that dicatates the automatic punishment. Plus say you make the auto punishment for punching 8 games, well if i were a player im not going to throw one am i, im going to get a 8 game ban so i may aswell give the guy a good hiding, and then if you retaliate or protect yourself you get a ban because you cant ban one person for an offence and not ban another

Its not as simple as you suggest

I disagree, I think it is very simple to improve consistency, I think it is very difficult to make EVERYBODY happy.

Ok so what would you do to imporve consistency?

Look at evidence, watch videos, look back at previous cases, not be influenced by media, ignore what chairmen and coaches say, ignore what pundits say, stick to the rule book, have the same panel every week, sack Ganson, make referees accountable for their decisions.

@CP
I did ask but i was looking for some meaningful suggestions not just "Id make it better".

Im not burying my head in the sand im just not jumping on the everyone hates wigan bandwagon - infact throughout these threads its the ones who have no issue with the punishments that have put the sensible suggestions for progress forward, all the people enraged by it seems to just being calling the RFL all names under the sun and saying how rubbish they are and how its so easy to change but then failing to furnish us with the easy solution. All it sounds like to me and probably most other fans at the moment is all the people saying "id make it better" are really saying "id make it better for wigan".

But for the sake of the debate let me clarify my stance on a few things;

1) I do not believe the RFL is run particulary well, and i do not believe that the punishments are consistent, however i dont think they are massively off the mark.

2) I do not believe that lance hohaia's punishment was sufficient but again probably off by 2 games at most.

3) i expected and am happy with the ban on flower given the circumstances and the sheer stand out nature of the incident.

On a seperate note i think the very fact that people claim the westwood and flower incidents are "alike" proves how subjective consistency is. They were polars apart and two very different incidents

cpwigan wrote:The second punch was distasteful but it was not full blooded)

If you think that the second blow wasn't full blooded Cpw then you weren't watching the same match as me.