WiganWarriorsFans.com

cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.

It seems the RL can prove it.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.

cow yeds wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.

It seems the RL can prove it.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.

That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

cow yeds wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.

It seems the RL can prove it.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.

That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!

You're right.

I remember one replay from somewhat later in the match where it looked really bad. Looked like the first contact was on the head. All the others look like it slipped up from the top of the shoulder. So I guess the policy is based on the worst looking replay.

TBH, it was late and high - not that i thought that when i was at the game.

THe whole RFL hugely lacks transparency and consistency. I'm not saying there is corruption, but the setup and laack of accountability at the moment is an ideal system to hide or develop corruption. Just look at the Hillsborough policing actions that have come out now. If you can act behind closed doors with no public recourse to finding out what went on, then a culture of corruption can develop.

THe worst example of all of this is the franchising system - its basically just being made up to suit whatever the whim of a couple of guys is. I can believe that because they do not publish the full details of their decision making process.

cherry.pie wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.

Are you suggesting McIlorum didn't actually hit him at all?

I do not know. Try running at a decent speed and hitting somebody from behind. It is not as easy as it appears to make perfect contact. I saw a player trying to get up fast to put a hit/tackle/challenge on a player. The player passes before he gets there so he commits a late hit/tackle/challenge. He primarily makes contact with the back of that player which is no different than many challenges some penalised / some not. Here is a though, how many times is a kicker hit late? How many times do the RFL decide he was commited so contact although late was unavoidable?

Nobody has proven where/how contact was made. We know bar his oscar award that the player was not hurt. So was contact that bad/dangerous?

cow yeds wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

cow yeds wrote: It seems the RL can prove it.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.

That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!

You're right.

Luckily this week some people fought for 23 years rather than adopt your stance.

cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.

In short, no. I suspect that there are only two individuals who honestly know. MM has said that he definitely made contact with the shoulder first, Laffranchi has stayed quiet throughout the whole episode.

I suspect that Laffranchi went down hoping that Micky would receive 10 minutes in the sin bin for a late tackle and was surprised, but happy, when Micky got sent off. Without Laffranchi's intervention Micky was always going to get banned, as those impartial viewers at Red Hall and Sky were always going to make the most of the situation - the incident didn't look good from the TV shots (even though the evidence was inconclusive). They have clearly taken the line, contrary to English Law, that you are guilty until proven innocent! There may have been a travesty of justice and, as always, Wigan are going to have to beat the establishment, as well as the opposition, if we are to be successful at OT!

cpwigan wrote:

cow yeds wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote: That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!

You're right.

Luckily this week some people fought for 23 years rather than adopt your stance.

What's that got to do with owt on here??

Mike wrote:I remember one replay from somewhat later in the match where it looked really bad. Looked like the first contact was on the head. All the others look like it slipped up from the top of the shoulder. So I guess the policy is based on the worst looking replay.

TBH, it was late and high - not that i thought that when i was at the game.

THe whole RFL hugely lacks transparency and consistency. I'm not saying there is corruption, but the setup and laack of accountability at the moment is an ideal system to hide or develop corruption. Just look at the Hillsborough policing actions that have come out now. If you can act behind closed doors with no public recourse to finding out what went on, then a culture of corruption can develop.

THe worst example of all of this is the franchising system - its basically just being made up to suit whatever the whim of a couple of guys is. I can believe that because they do not publish the full details of their decision making process.

You're on about the reply they found to show at half time from behind Laffranchi. Front on and side on it looked like he brushed over the shoulder before a round armed forearn/wrist landed on the face. That reply looked really bad. Way worse than it looked live. Still cna't beleive three games was upheld. They had a chance to fit it in line with the kind of appraoch they normally take but didn't do anything about it. We might have been better off if MM got a ban after the Bradford red card, they might have felt less inclined to get him this time.

Anyway, it's happened, MM has been made the example of that RFL wanted to make of him. We ahve to figure out how to deal with team selection for the next three games.

cow yeds wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

cow yeds wrote: You're right.

Luckily this week some people fought for 23 years rather than adopt your stance.

What's that got to do with owt on here??

A great deal. You are arguing what is done is done, no point challenging authority / complaining for what is right. Exactly the opposite of what people should do as exemplified by events yesterday.

If something is wrong then never accept it, always challenge it otherwise you become as guilty as those who do the wrong thing.

British people need to start growing a set of balls instead of meekly accepting their lot and being crapped on. We are a gutless divided, ever widening nation.