WiganWarriorsFans.com

The only thing that bothers me is Mickey Mac himself.
Is he 'reckless' in his tackling or has he a darker side?

cpwigan wrote:

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.

Although I agree in general with you cp about trying to hold authorities to account. I think you are going a long way in your mind from what actually did happen in the incident. Mickey did hit Lafranch late and he did make major contact with the head. You've even go so far as to imply he didnt' hit him at all becuase its very difficult to do. That seriously undermines your arguments in my eyes, because it is not a realistic view based on the video evidience.

I do agree that there is terrbile inconsistency in the RFL discaplinary and hat we tend to get on the worst side of that.

They have started to be more transparent by publishing decisions and citings, but they need to go much further. IMO they need a month review of all decisions to ensure consistency. TBH its a problem in the whole RFL.

Lastly, i don't think we're a divided and gutless nation - we jsut held the police to account after a 30 year battle despite multiple governments being against that. If you can get a pressure campaign involving many influencial people together to sort out the RFL then great. I'm not sure its up there as a major issue for enough people though.

Mike if he had hit him then a broken jaw would have resulted or at the least he would have been knocked unconcious. It is not that easy to hit somebody from behind and at speed. He was clearly late but he was moving at speed to make the tackle, the ball was passed after he had moved 9 yards and was a yard away. Laffranchi had also started to move sideways. We see some amazing attacks in movies, in real life it is far harder than many seem to imagine in the seconds a professional RL player has. As it stands nobody can prove what actually happened. I have looked and it is still confusing and not clear cut.

I do not think people care anymore about justice Mike other than a few hardy souls like those that have been fighting 23 years. A true minority. I can look at my own sector and the fact parents are not up in arms about the exams fiasco shows the true spirit of our nation.

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

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!!

Why?.... Am I not entitled to an opinion just because it doesn't go along with the majority. Exile doesn't want my opinion as it isn't the same as his.
I;ve been watching Wigan for well over sixty years and I've seen a lot of unfair punishments handed down over that time plus a lot of Off the ball incidents that went unpunished, e.g. Perry on Lima in the same game. I maintain that there was no need for M.M. to do as he did but he got spotted and now the club have a main player absent for three crucial games. I'm as sick as the rest of you over this but the disciplinary handed him three games and we'll have to accept it as they have never done Wigan any favours. If it had been Bailey it would have been! "sending off sufficient" but it's not Bailey it's McIloram and as the Bard said, "Aye, there's the rub" . End of.

CP - So you believe that he didn't make contact with Lafrnchis head?

Mike wrote:CP - So you believe that he didn't make contact with Lafrnchis head?

Mike I do not know exactly what contact he made or whether he hit his shoulder first and then his head. He eventually made some contact with his head but it was clearly not severe given Laffranchi was fine after 'milking it' (which most players do). The images are not great for making a clear decision.

Here is a question. Do players quite often make contact with a ball carriers head when tackling them?

cpwigan wrote:

jobo wrote:

cpwigan wrote: 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?

Speeding thing is a spurious argument CP. If I broke the speed limit, then I'd be guilty but they wouldn't take my licence just for that. Other people getting a lighter sentence just wouldn't happen unless there were mitigating circumstances. As for MM, imo, the video evidence is clear and he's responsible for us being without a key player going into the play offs.

Not really Jobo

RL X players commit the same offence and they receive different punishments - UNFAIR

People here quite happy with unfair treatment so simple question/example. If they go shafted for speeding would they take it?

I seriously think we get the country / world we deserve because the vast majority of people would merrily get crapped upon and say cest la vie

cpwigan wrote:

Mike wrote:CP - So you believe that he didn't make contact with Lafrnchis head?

Mike I do not know exactly what contact he made or whether he hit his shoulder first and then his head. He eventually made some contact with his head but it was clearly not severe given Laffranchi was fine after 'milking it' (which most players do). The images are not great for making a clear decision.

Here is a question. Do players quite often make contact with a ball carriers head when tackling them?

So you are arguing (by implication) that this tackle was no different to any other tackle where incidental contact was made with an opponents head - i.e. not a delibrate high tackle?

Straight question - having seen the incident live and on replays, what do you think would be the right on field decision, and what (if required) would be the correct citing/disaplinary verdict?

bill.inger wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

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!!

Why?.... Am I not entitled to an opinion just because it doesn't go along with the majority. Exile doesn't want my opinion as it isn't the same as his.
I;ve been watching Wigan for well over sixty years and I've seen a lot of unfair punishments handed down over that time plus a lot of Off the ball incidents that went unpunished, e.g. Perry on Lima in the same game. I maintain that there was no need for M.M. to do as he did but he got spotted and now the club have a main player absent for three crucial games. I'm as sick as the rest of you over this but the disciplinary handed him three games and we'll have to accept it as they have never done Wigan any favours. If it had been Bailey it would have been! "sending off sufficient" but it's not Bailey it's McIloram and as the Bard said, "Aye, there's the rub" . End of.

Bill of course you are entitled to an opinion but equally I am entitled to say whether I agree with it or not. In this occasion I clearly don't agree with it but your follow up post above is more agreeable than the original post. I think MM deserved to be sent off but 3 games is a tad harsh in my opinion, the point I really didn't understand that you made was about 'It's pointless drawing comparisons with other players' offences and what the R.F.L. thought fit to impose on them as a punishment.' because that point of view is why the RFL are seemingly untouchable and they should have an authority to answer to. The fact that the chief exec of one of our big rivals clearly has a big say at the RFL astounds me, and things need to be changed, there is surely more than enough evidence of corruption out there.