WiganWarriorsFans.com

Jimmy Birts wrote:Lenegan getting a full page lashing in the Mirror today for comparing the hysteria over Ben Flower to that surrounding Beckham's sending off against Argentina in the World Cup. At least you don't have to go about 7 pages in from the back page these days to find the rugby league story lurking somewhere around the sex chat line ads.

thegimble wrote:Some will not be happy

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ben-flower

Mike wrote:So cp, TBWs and others arguement seems to be summed up as this.

We should have complained in the media at length and during the discaplinary meeting. We should have visibly been protesting that LH should have been banned longer and BF was provoked.

And they think that the outcome would have been better - i.e. a longer ban for LH and a shorter ban for BF.

I disagree. The ban would have been longer and could even have been shorter for LH. The club would have looked like we were condoning the second punch regardless of whether we had been or not - thats what the press would have reported. The only upside of this would be to keep RL in the spotlight, but that's not an upside for Wigan RL.

We had a damage limitation situation which we handled as well as was possible in the circumstances.

We now have to have new resolve to fix the problems that other posters have rightly highlighted. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the general point about the massive lack of consistency in the discaplinary. But the way you play you hand is not to get all angry and go off half cocked. Make a plan, get some support, execute it at the right time - and ultimately force the RFL to reform. Thats how real operators work. You're not going to achieve that by shouting at them right now when we have not got a leg to stand on.

sheepsteeth wrote:

Mike wrote:So cp, TBWs and others arguement seems to be summed up as this.

We should have complained in the media at length and during the discaplinary meeting. We should have visibly been protesting that LH should have been banned longer and BF was provoked.

And they think that the outcome would have been better - i.e. a longer ban for LH and a shorter ban for BF.

I disagree. The ban would have been longer and could even have been shorter for LH. The club would have looked like we were condoning the second punch regardless of whether we had been or not - thats what the press would have reported. The only upside of this would be to keep RL in the spotlight, but that's not an upside for Wigan RL.

We had a damage limitation situation which we handled as well as was possible in the circumstances.

We now have to have new resolve to fix the problems that other posters have rightly highlighted. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the general point about the massive lack of consistency in the discaplinary. But the way you play you hand is not to get all angry and go off half cocked. Make a plan, get some support, execute it at the right time - and ultimately force the RFL to reform. Thats how real operators work. You're not going to achieve that by shouting at them right now when we have not got a leg to stand on.

Agree with all of this.

Yes the RFL are inconsistent, but surely anyone can see now is not the time to make a stand on that point.

Mike wrote:Obviously when we've had time to put together a coalition of other chairman and a set of supporting evidence (not including this incident) along with some solid suggestions on how to improve the current systems.

And to present that to the RFL privately so they can look like they themselves are taking the lead and not being criticised and pressurised into admitting their systems are flawed.

They tend to react to the sort of comments you'd like us to make with fines rather than improvements.

sheepsteeth wrote:

Mike wrote:Obviously when we've had time to put together a coalition of other chairman and a set of supporting evidence (not including this incident) along with some solid suggestions on how to improve the current systems.

And to present that to the RFL privately so they can look like they themselves are taking the lead and not being criticised and pressurised into admitting their systems are flawed.

They tend to react to the sort of comments you'd like us to make with fines rather than improvements.

exactly

cpwigan wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

Mike wrote:Obviously when we've had time to put together a coalition of other chairman and a set of supporting evidence (not including this incident) along with some solid suggestions on how to improve the current systems.

And to present that to the RFL privately so they can look like they themselves are taking the lead and not being criticised and pressurised into admitting their systems are flawed.

They tend to react to the sort of comments you'd like us to make with fines rather than improvements.

exactly

Yet neither of you can honestly say that the RFL being given an easy ride results in progress. Any organisation only tends to make far reaching change with lasting benefit when forced to do so.

The RFL is an abject failure YET you want to remain silent. IIRC, the most recent set of changes came about when civil war nearly broke out until sufficient owners received sufficient sweetners for their own end to then turn on each other.

A fantastic sport that will not realise its potential owing to the worst administrative body in sport.