WiganWarriorsFans.com

So if you look at it through cps eyes it's worse for a criminal to beat up a fellow criminal than it is to beat up a copper or a it's worse for a pupil to punch and kick a fellow pupil in the head and groin than it is to attack the actual teacher or have i got the wrong end of the stick and will therefore be accused of trolling again?

medlocke wrote:So if you look at it through cps eyes it's worse for a criminal to beat up a fellow criminal than it is to beat up a copper or a it's worse for a pupil to punch and kick a fellow pupil in the head and groin than it is to attack the actual teacher or have i got the wrong end of the stick and will therefore be accused of trolling again?

I just ignore your posts

cpwigan wrote:

medlocke wrote:So if you look at it through cps eyes it's worse for a criminal to beat up a fellow criminal than it is to beat up a copper or a it's worse for a pupil to punch and kick a fellow pupil in the head and groin than it is to attack the actual teacher or have i got the wrong end of the stick and will therefore be accused of trolling again?

I just ignore your posts

you obviously don't

i'm spartacus wrote:

cpwigan wrote:
I still stand by my other argument. A referee got pushed other in a crazy harmless but wrong prank is seen as 3 times as bad as players trying to hurt opponents and damage their career / livelihood. THAT IS AS WRONG as Hock.

I don't think you are getting the point cp to be honest. The referee isn't playing the game and by hitting him deliberately, it exposes him to a risk he did not accept, and plainly and simply it deserves greater punishment.

If you like the contest to two boxers banging away at one another; both of them are running the risk of injury which they both accept as part and parcel of the sport. One of them may act outside the rules, like biting half of the other guys ear off, but the rules make allowances for acting outside the rules and impose sanctions on the offender.

If one of the boxers was to deliberately stick one on the referee, the chances are he would never box again because the referee has nothing to do with the actual contest.

The punishment has nothing to do with the potential for injury. The punishment is tied to the fact that the player accepts he may get injured through a deliberate contact he's exposed himself to during the game. The referee hasn't accepted a risk of injury through deliberate contact and if a player deliberately hits him, he deserves all he gets.

Obviously referees / TJs do not expect to be tackled even in a moment of crazy fun but it would be wrong to say they do not officiate without risk and often the risk is accidental as Phil Bentham exemplifies.

Hock was never intending to hurt the referee albeit his asinine off the wall tackle was clearly wrong but it really was never going to hurt the referee. As a parent you play rough and tumble with your child. The differential is far greater yet said child never comes to any harm.

It would be wrong to suggest players accept they are likely to get injured by foul play and willingly accept it given we have several examples of legal cases upon such instances.

In this country, foul play is not treated as it should be ad is far worse than a crazy prank by Gareth Hock. Jim Comans had it right when he cleaned up Australian RL. Ask Josh Charnley if he expects to be suffering his current effects from an illegal challenge and that it is far less significant than a stupid prank by a player on a referee.

Not that this prank is along the same lines but the current conduct between officials and pro players has become very blurred with several players now touching / placing hands on officials and it is ignored. Yet, for amateurs the rules are black and white.

medlocke wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

medlocke wrote:So if you look at it through cps eyes it's worse for a criminal to beat up a fellow criminal than it is to beat up a copper or a it's worse for a pupil to punch and kick a fellow pupil in the head and groin than it is to attack the actual teacher or have i got the wrong end of the stick and will therefore be accused of trolling again?

I just ignore your posts

you obviously don't

Trust me I do.

cpwigan wrote:
Obviously referees / TJs do not expect to be tackled even in a moment of crazy fun but it would be wrong to say they do not officiate without risk and often the risk is accidental as Phil Bentham exemplifies.

Which was a point I made earlier. there is a world of difference between running into a referee by accident, and doing it deliberately. Anyone doing anything can be injured by accident on the turn of some freak event. Running headlong into a referee on purpose and not accidentally is absolutely wrong whether it is done as some sort of 'joke' or out of malice makes no difference. A referee does not sign up to be exposed to that type of risk.

cpwigan wrote: Hock was never intending to hurt the referee albeit his asinine off the wall tackle was clearly wrong but it really was never going to hurt the referee. As a parent you play rough and tumble with your child. The differential is far greater yet said child never comes to any harm.

A remarkable conclusion to come to and a remarkable analogy to draw upon. Both of these people are grown men doing what they do in the course of their employment, and there is simply no comparison to a parent playing with a child.

The fact is that he could have hurt the ref and hurt him quite badly. Bentham suffered his broken leg from something that looked really quite innocuous. In this case the referee's head could quite easily have made contact with the floor, or he could quite easily have landed awkwardly and broken a limb. This is the risk he exposed a referee to, and it is just pure luck that he wasn't injured.

cpwigan wrote:
It would be wrong to suggest players accept they are likely to get injured by foul play and willingly accept it given we have several examples of legal cases upon such instances.

Name one?

What I said is that players injuring others through foul play are dealt with through the rules system, but that does not lessen the fact that they are in a full contact sport in which there is a high risk of sustaining an injury, and that could very well happen whether it is through foul play or not.

All players know that foul play will occur, and they all know that at some point they will be on the receiving end of it. Anyone who has ever played rugby league knows that this will happen, and they know that there is a rule system in place implemented by the RFL to deal with it. If you sign up to a club and play the game knowing that all that is true, you accept the risk that it is going to happen and you trust that the powers will deal with it when it occurs.

That is the nature of accepting risks, or volenti non fit injuria to give it the proper latin legal title

cpwigan wrote:
In this country, foul play is not treated as it should be ad is far worse than a crazy prank by Gareth Hock. Jim Comans had it right when he cleaned up Australian RL. Ask Josh Charnley if he expects to be suffering his current effects from an illegal challenge and that it is far less significant than a stupid prank by a player on a referee.

I don't know how many times and how many ways I have to explain this, but see the previous paragraph.

Did you take nothing from the boxing match analogy I presented before? You simply could not drop a right hook on a referee as a crazy prank even if you never intended to hurt him, it is absolutely wrong, and would get you banned from the sport sine die

I'm beginning to think that you are actually his dad as you are the only person on this board trying to defend him from the indefensible. The lad needs to grow up, and to be honest, at his age I think the chances of it ever happening are very slim

cpwigan wrote:a moment of crazy fun

IMO this opinion of what Hock did is a bit weird. To the point where I find process by which you have come to the conclusion that knocking over the referee deliberately is a moment of crazy fun as slightly worrying.

If he'd done it to a member of the crowd, woudl that be crazy fun or a joke?

cpwigan wrote:

medlocke wrote:

cpwigan wrote: I just ignore your posts

you obviously don't

Trust me I do.

Unfortunately by replying you have proven that you don't ignore them. I await your denial based on the fact that reading and responding to things is the same as ignoring them. Its getting a bit weird around here.

Mike wrote:

cpwigan wrote:a moment of crazy fun

IMO this opinion of what Hock did is a bit weird. To the point where I find process by which you have come to the conclusion that knocking over the referee deliberately is a moment of crazy fun as slightly worrying.

If he'd done it to a member of the crowd, woudl that be crazy fun or a joke?

Obviously it is wrong to do so Mike but whenever a referee falls over the crowds cheers and lol. I daresay it is wrong for the crowds to do so but it is harmless fun.

At training (amateur level) players will often pull a prank / act silly momentarily. It momentarily provides an interlude, a harmless bit of fun. The players then switch back on.

Gaz Hock was stupid, you could argue that is Gaz Hock 24/7 etc. I am not sure he engaged brain but clearly he deviated and 'gently/playfully' tackled the referee. The referee was never going to be hurt. Nothing happened during the match following the incident so on that basis if it was so wrong why was it ignored?

You will sometimes see players nowadays push / manouvre referees to the side if they are blocking a defender or his view in the defensive line. Nothing is ever said. The likes of Sinfield, Wilkin, Wellens place hands on referees and at times scream in the face of referees. Nothing happens.

It remains a mountain out of a mole hill and I maintain it should not be deemed far worse than deliberately trying to injure an opponent. Whatsmore, a referee ignoring some instances of foul play was hailed as great refereeing v Catalans. How crazy is that? If you have to send 4 players off you send 4 off. Human narure being what it is, whenever a team has a player sent off they then get treated more leniently.

Should Gaz Hock have done it? Obviously not. Was it crazy? Yes. Is it worse than a player deliberately injuring another player with foul play? NO

Mike wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

medlocke wrote: you obviously don't

Trust me I do.

Unfortunately by replying you have proven that you don't ignore them. I await your denial based on the fact that reading and responding to things is the same as ignoring them. Its getting a bit weird around here.

I skim read everything Mike so obviously I 'ignore' nothing. If a post takes my interest I make a considered reply. It a post is what I perceive as trolling or pointless it gets either no reply or one line. For an opinionated SOB like me that is 'ignoring'

Is that double dutch enough