WiganWarriorsFans.com

platt-warrior wrote:Are you thinking what i'm thinking TBW?

I thought it on the first post but reserved judgement. New to the site so maybe wrong smiley...

cpwigan wrote:The Gelling charge is laughable. An opponent is charged with sticking the knee into him, what do they expect!

Like I have said before, players of other clubs can commit that kind of thing on Wigan players and nothing is done about it, but if a Wigan player does likewise or retaliates, the disciplinary committee can't get to the video recording of a incident quick enough.

The whole disciplinary set up is a joke as proved by the recent Peacock and some other verdicts.

All depends on who you are and who you play for and also depends on which so called independent neutrals are on the panel on the day.

Whelley Warrior wrote:

cpwigan wrote:The Gelling charge is laughable. An opponent is charged with sticking the knee into him, what do they expect!

Like I have said before, players of other clubs can commit that kind of thing on Wigan players and nothing is done about it, but if a Wigan player does likewise or retaliates, the disciplinary committee can't get to the video recording of a incident quick enough.

The whole disciplinary set up is a joke as proved by the recent Peacock and some other verdicts.

All depends on who you are and who you play for and also depends on which so called independent neutrals are on the panel on the day.

I think the EGP is a joke. It virtually forces players to take a ban in case they have the effrontery to contest being put on report was wrong.

You can imagine the panel automatically adding a match to any ban should they be found guilty just because the player had the temerity to ask them to look again.

Any sensible judgement on Faz would have been a warning but the club were clearly not prepared to risk that so he's banned anyway. Lose-lose.

Ref's put things on report supposedly because they don't have the information to act on the day so an EGP means potentially innocent players cop a ban because the ref thought they they may have a case to answer.

The hearings are either a genuine effort to ascertain guilt or innocence or they are a pantomime. If they are a genuine effort the EGP is not required and they should just judge each incident as it comes.

If the panel have pre-judged the issue because they decide the player has a case to answer what is the point of a hearing? Just dish the ban out and be done with it.

markill wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Hughes OR Hopkins at LSR.

Re; hooker I would put Rocky when he is fit again in at 9 for short spells particularly when we have good possession / field position

Hughes was going fine there when Faz was injured. If Lockers and Bateman come back in that's still a fine back row if Hughes plays as he was doing in May.

I assume you'd do what Leeds do with Burrow and defend Hampshire wide rather than as a middle? I'm not sure he would work out of 9 off anything other than fast potbs.

I would Mark re defence. I can also see times for him to come on as a 9 such as last 10/15 minutes of the first half. He could even alternate with Matty Smith between 9 and 7.

Yet again, following the game against Hull K R, three Wigan players cited, but only one from the Robins.

It's the same after nearly every game!

Whelley Warrior wrote:Yet again, following the game against Hull K R, three Wigan players cited, but only one from the Robins.

It's the same after nearly every game!

Unless you were to tell us which players of Hull KR you feel should have been cited but weren't I'm not really sure what merit there is to your point? Does it similarly apply to all the other clubs who had more citations than their opponents this week? Four other teams have had more citations than us this season from Super League games. I'd stop worrying about your conspiracy theories if I were you.

markill wrote:

Whelley Warrior wrote:Yet again, following the game against Hull K R, three Wigan players cited, but only one from the Robins.

It's the same after nearly every game!

Unless you were to tell us which players of Hull KR you feel should have been cited but weren't I'm not really sure what merit there is to your point? Does it similarly apply to all the other clubs who had more citations than their opponents this week? Four other teams have had more citations than us this season from Super League games. I'd stop worrying about your conspiracy theories if I were you.

After some of the inconsistencies of this season, I would stop trying to defend the disciplinary panel ALL THE TIME, if I were you!!

markill wrote:

Whelley Warrior wrote:Yet again, following the game against Hull K R, three Wigan players cited, but only one from the Robins.

It's the same after nearly every game!

Unless you were to tell us which players of Hull KR you feel should have been cited but weren't I'm not really sure what merit there is to your point? Does it similarly apply to all the other clubs who had more citations than their opponents this week? Four other teams have had more citations than us this season from Super League games. I'd stop worrying about your conspiracy theories if I were you.

4 out of 13 isn'r a happy statistic I would suggest.

ian.birchall wrote:

markill wrote:

Whelley Warrior wrote:Yet again, following the game against Hull K R, three Wigan players cited, but only one from the Robins.

It's the same after nearly every game!

Unless you were to tell us which players of Hull KR you feel should have been cited but weren't I'm not really sure what merit there is to your point? Does it similarly apply to all the other clubs who had more citations than their opponents this week? Four other teams have had more citations than us this season from Super League games. I'd stop worrying about your conspiracy theories if I were you.

4 out of 13 isn'r a happy statistic I would suggest.

I also think it's not about the number of citations a team gets but more about how many certain teams/players get away with!!

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

markill wrote:

Whelley Warrior wrote:Yet again, following the game against Hull K R, three Wigan players cited, but only one from the Robins.

It's the same after nearly every game!

Unless you were to tell us which players of Hull KR you feel should have been cited but weren't I'm not really sure what merit there is to your point? Does it similarly apply to all the other clubs who had more citations than their opponents this week? Four other teams have had more citations than us this season from Super League games. I'd stop worrying about your conspiracy theories if I were you.

After some of the inconsistencies of this season, I would stop trying to defend the disciplinary panel ALL THE TIME, if I were you!!

Not trying to defend the system, or even suggest that they don't make inconsistent calls on what is and isn't discussed at the match review panel meetings. I just strongly feel there is no anti Wigan bias from the system and given other teams have had more incidents scrutinised than we have that is borne out. A post claimed there was with a recent fact, I claim there isn't with a similarly factual statement.