WiganWarriorsFans.com

Never a charge down in living memor. His arrms should have been raised high and his palms facing the kicker.

+1 cowardly is making a comment like that when theirs no way you would say it to him.[/quote]

Actually, I would do so. Indeed, I will write to him in the morning. I will let you know what he says in resposne. Not sure whether I will be able to see him I person but I will do so if I get the chance.

No it is people saying what they believe.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUt-zS-3iuI[/youtube]

The RFL cannot prove intent BUT IMO Benny knew exactly what he was doing. It scummy and cheap.

The niotion that Skerrett was a thug though is laughable. Like many enforcing prop they do LESS and LESS enforcing as their careers progress. The only time he backed down IMO was v Foggerty at Saints but cheap shots were never Skerrett.

The best Wigan comparison to Flower was McDermott Wigan v Australia

I think that if you think that was in anyway leading to a charge down then im sorry but youre delusional,it was clumsy,i think refs look at how players act after theyve seen the red mist,made a mistake etc,Ben didnt cover himself by running off seemingly not even asking the lad if he was ok,pat on the head etc,it was always leading to a red card and ban,i said so on the night without seeing it on the big screen.

I just dont get how people try and defend this,no i dont care about consistency and other players,i do care about the club and tackles like that,while again ill say i dont think he was out to maim anyone it was clumsy as ive said.

Quite who thought an appeal would work also need an hour in the shrinks chair as there was no way it was ever going to be turned over,and blah,blah hes entitled to an appeal,he's also entitled to take his punishment the right way which i suspect he was happy too and the club thought it a spiffing idea to put an appeal in.

Rightly chucked out i assume after theyd stopped laughing at the paperwork.

There is as much politics in appealing as there is any thought of if he would get off.

I think Wigan must have genuinely thought it was a clumsy attempt, not intentional and that given others have not even been sent off for clearly deliberate attacks it was worth a go a) for that reason but b) to also get the point across that you will appeal what you see as incorrect decisions.

Staying quiet serves no purpose and won't do anything to improve the inconsistency.

DaveO wrote:There is as much politics in appealing as there is any thought of if he would get off.

I think Wigan must have genuinely thought it was a clumsy attempt, not intentional and that given others have not even been sent off for clearly deliberate attacks it was worth a go a) for that reason but b) to also get the point across that you will appeal what you see as incorrect decisions.

Staying quiet serves no purpose and won't do anything to improve the inconsistency.

Here here Dave , i thought it was clumsy at worst considering he was not even looking at Patton but turning his back

I expected two games so not that gutted.
Would have been worse if it had been upped to three games after the appeal.
Hopefully hes raring to go( if we get to the final)

DaveO wrote:There is as much politics in appealing as there is any thought of if he would get off.

I think Wigan must have genuinely thought it was a clumsy attempt, not intentional and that given others have not even been sent off for clearly deliberate attacks it was worth a go a) for that reason but b) to also get the point across that you will appeal what you see as incorrect decisions.

Staying quiet serves no purpose and won't do anything to improve the inconsistency.

But pick your battles more carefully though,it was clumsy but that's beside the point the offence has be admitted,pick a battle that has say a 60% chance of success rather than this one,which bar a few inches could have done serious damage.

Yes we all want consistency but we won't get it,you can expect a level of consistency of course and I think it was a fair sentence,if you keep appealing then it seems to me you will end up less likely of winning a marginal one down the road,and let's be fair here if Wigan had a full compliment of props they would have opted to say nowt and give a Flower the rest.

Only one person will ever know the truth but IMO Benny knew exactly what he was doing, it was deliberate in the sennse he knew he would take the kicker out, and high. I do not think he wanted to break the players jaw Etc but that could have easily happened.

It was unprovoked whereas OT had some provocation.

cpwigan wrote:Only one person will ever know the truth but IMO Benny knew exactly what he was doing, it was deliberate in the sennse he knew he would take the kicker out, and high. I do not think he wanted to break the players jaw Etc but that could have easily happened.

It was unprovoked whereas OT had some provocation.

Sorry CPW but I feel that IF Ben wanted to seriously hurt Patton then he would have done so. Not his "style" for snidely attacks nor attempted thuggery. Ben strikes me as the sort of player that if he wanted to hit you - then he would and bugger the consequencies

IMO that means this was nothing more than down to poor/lazy technique