WiganWarriorsFans.com

cpwigan wrote:

cow yeds wrote:

cpwigan wrote: 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.

What's done is done, He was guilty of a head tackle for which he got red card and a suspension in accordanmce with the laws of the game.

He challenged authority with the help of Harris and was still guilty.

You are one of them who if the saints player had hit one of ours like that you would be screaming the other way.

Justice for the 96 still has nothing to do with this thread.

cow yeds wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

cow yeds wrote: 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.

What's done is done, He was guilty of a head tackle for which he got red card and a suspension in accordanmce with the laws of the game.

He challenged authority with the help of Harris and was still guilty.

You are one of them who if the saints player had hit one of ours like that you would be screaming the other way.

Justice for the 96 still has nothing to do with this thread.

You are totally missing the point

I could not care less who somebody plays for as long as they get a fair deal.

cpwigan wrote:

cow yeds wrote:

cpwigan wrote: 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.

What's done is done, He was guilty of a head tackle for which he got red card and a suspension in accordanmce with the laws of the game.

He challenged authority with the help of Harris and was still guilty.

You are one of them who if the saints player had hit one of ours like that you would be screaming the other way.

Justice for the 96 still has nothing to do with this thread.

You are totally missing the point

I could not care less who somebody plays for as long as they get a fair deal.

MM got a fair deal though. Might not be consistent with every other decision the disciplinary panel has made and perhaps they could have been a bit more lenient, in view of the games ahead but it was fair.

What's wrong with some of you lot? He launched an attack from behind and tried to take a mans head off, he's a snapper and he's got a fair punishment considering his disciplinary record this season alone. It's pointless drawing comparisons with other players' offences and what the R.F.L. thought fit to impose on them as a punishment.

bill.inger wrote:What's wrong with some of you lot? He launched an attack from behind and tried to take a mans head off, he's a snapper and he's got a fair punishment considering his disciplinary record this season alone. It's pointless drawing comparisons with other players' offences and what the R.F.L. thought fit to impose on them as a punishment.

If you think that, I really don't see why you bother joining a discussion forum.

If he play for Leeds, it would have been reduced to two matches or even only received two games in the first place.

bill.inger wrote:What's wrong with some of you lot? He launched an attack from behind and tried to take a mans head off, he's a snapper and he's got a fair punishment considering his disciplinary record this season alone. It's pointless drawing comparisons with other players' offences and what the R.F.L. thought fit to impose on them as a punishment.

What a ridiculous point of view!!

I'm gutted that MM is out of the team. He's been a cracker for most of this season. I like his in-yer-face aggression even if it does backfire occasionally. A three-game ban is harsh and does seem strangely linked to the number of games left to play but we can't reverse the decision.
Meanwhile, we have Cats to face tomorrow. Is Tommy replacing MM and is he physically up to 80 minutes? Is Matty partnering Finch? Does Logan get a look in? Is SW going to risk Fielden and Dudson again or go for Luaki? Anyone know THE PLAN?

jobo wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

cow yeds wrote: What's done is done, He was guilty of a head tackle for which he got red card and a suspension in accordanmce with the laws of the game.

He challenged authority with the help of Harris and was still guilty.

You are one of them who if the saints player had hit one of ours like that you would be screaming the other way.

Justice for the 96 still has nothing to do with this thread.

You are totally missing the point

I could not care less who somebody plays for as long as they get a fair deal.

MM got a fair deal though. Might not be consistent with every other decision the disciplinary panel has made and perhaps they could have been a bit more lenient, in view of the games ahead but it was fair.

How can something be fair if a you say the people sitting in judgement are inconsistent ? Your statement defies logic.

To give you an example. You break the 30 MPS limit on a road and get you licence take from you whereas several other people guilty of the same offence get 3pts and a fine. Would you say you got a fair deal?

bill.inger wrote:What's wrong with some of you lot? He launched an attack from behind and tried to take a mans head off, he's a snapper and he's got a fair punishment considering his disciplinary record this season alone. It's pointless drawing comparisons with other players' offences and what the R.F.L. thought fit to impose on them as a punishment.

Sweet Jesus

He did not launch an attack. Even your wording is a disgrace given no images clearly show what happened and the player concerned after 'milking it' got up with not a scratch on him.

The judgement was clearly unfair because we have seen examples of worse offences receiving the same / more lenient punishments.

I presume when you are treated unfairly you say Thank you and take it like a good little boy/girl. What a country we live in where people routinely and blindly accept unfairness and miscarriages of justices.