A site for fans of Wigan Warriors RLFC. News, views, statistics, profiles and more all contributed by supporters of Wigan RL.
https://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/
Mike, safe your breath as some on here have no intention of listening to common sense!Mike wrote:What, specifically, is wrong with the grading guidlines.
It seems to me your major problem is the way they are applied. Not the guidlines and process itself.
You use terms like 'agreed beforehand' which imply corruption and lack of accountability but you don't think measures to control and reveal that are a priority. You'd rather rewrite rules that you believe are being ignored. I don't personally believe that is the first thing to look at in this situation.
Apeals will always happen. They do in the courts. People have different experiences of the same events and that will produce very different expectations of disciplinary outcomes. That will always happen, but every decision should be clearly justified and supported by similar incidents with consistent outcomes.
TBH there probably isn't the time or the money in the game to do this perfectly but pressure needs to be applied to continuously improve.
I'd probably get the HKR chairman to lead this because he clearly has issues with the system. We have no credibility right now, but we can support and lead at a later point.
If I were you, I'd be more annoyed that we weren't complaining throughout the season when we had no particular issues with the panel (apart from seemingly many more citings than our opponents). Constant pressure to improve systems is something the club could have been applying in public when we were not under the microscope.
BtW I still don't understand why you think the club sold BF down the river. You andTBW in particular seem to now be saying we shouldn't have been complaining in public. And that his ban is about 4 games too long. Hardly a club, season and career shattering difference. So what did we do to sell him down the river?
Whelley Warrior wrote:I'd have thought that way that they are applied is part of the process itself.Mike wrote:What, specifically, is wrong with the grading guidlines.
It seems to me your major problem is the way they are applied. Not the guidlines and process itself.
Would prefer to not listen to it then not have any!!Whelley Warrior wrote:Mike, safe your breath as some on here have no intention of listening to common sense!Mike wrote:What, specifically, is wrong with the grading guidlines.
It seems to me your major problem is the way they are applied. Not the guidlines and process itself.
You use terms like 'agreed beforehand' which imply corruption and lack of accountability but you don't think measures to control and reveal that are a priority. You'd rather rewrite rules that you believe are being ignored. I don't personally believe that is the first thing to look at in this situation.
Apeals will always happen. They do in the courts. People have different experiences of the same events and that will produce very different expectations of disciplinary outcomes. That will always happen, but every decision should be clearly justified and supported by similar incidents with consistent outcomes.
TBH there probably isn't the time or the money in the game to do this perfectly but pressure needs to be applied to continuously improve.
I'd probably get the HKR chairman to lead this because he clearly has issues with the system. We have no credibility right now, but we can support and lead at a later point.
If I were you, I'd be more annoyed that we weren't complaining throughout the season when we had no particular issues with the panel (apart from seemingly many more citings than our opponents). Constant pressure to improve systems is something the club could have been applying in public when we were not under the microscope.
BtW I still don't understand why you think the club sold BF down the river. You andTBW in particular seem to now be saying we shouldn't have been complaining in public. And that his ban is about 4 games too long. Hardly a club, season and career shattering difference. So what did we do to sell him down the river?
The booze hound wrote:Hallelujah!!Whelley Warrior wrote:I'd have thought that way that they are applied is part of the process itself.Mike wrote:What, specifically, is wrong with the grading guidlines.
It seems to me your major problem is the way they are applied. Not the guidlines and process itself.
Fixed the link jawsjaws1 wrote:Been posted on here before but what would the panel give for this .
If you think Flowers punch was bad have a look at this
[youtube]http://youtu.be/9pmCb5HtiVU[/youtube]
He only got 14 weeks reduced to 10
