WiganWarriorsFans.com

What was it put on report for??? just rewatched it on sky nothing seemed wrong

so that will be a 9 match ban then, should of groped his nuts instead and get a 2 match ban

Yeah

:conf: I thought he was being accused of biting at the time. I would be shocked if Fielden had said anything like that. Loesi has a bit of reputation.

nitsua posted:

Shevi 4 life posted:
What was it put on report for??? just rewatched it on sky nothing seemed wrong

Evidently he made a racist remark.

That's a brave comment.

Were you within hearing range then? Or are you just preparing us for the attitude the rest of the game, including the RFL, will adopt - even before they've heard the evidence?

cpwigan posted:
Loesi has a bit of reputation.

For what?

A racist remork from Fielden is what the Hudds fans reckon happened. They can all lip-read from Sky apparently.

It has been said on rlfans it may have been in response to one from Loesi first (two wrongs do not make a right if true).

Dave

DaveO posted:

cpwigan posted:
Loesi has a bit of reputation.

For what?

A racist remork from Fielden is what the Hudds fans reckon happened. They can all lip-read from Sky apparently.

It has been said on rlfans it may have been in response to one from Loesi first (two wrongs do not make a right if true).

Dave

According to Sporting Life, the allegation has now been withdrawn by the Hudds player concerned.

So what does that mean exactly:

"I didn't really hear what Fielden said and certainly won't be able to prove that it was offensive, so basically, when I reported the incident, I was telling a downright lie".

Or perhaps:

"Fielden said something that sounded offensive, but I might have misheard it, so basically, when I reported the incident, I was telling a downright lie".

Or maybe:

"Fielden didn't say anything offensive at all, so basically, when I reported the incident, I was telling a downright lie"?

Interesting range of possibilities.

Mind you, what are the odds the RFL will continue to investigate? - anything to give those brain-dead wonders at Red Hall something to do (I mean apart from twiddling their pens all day and making daisy chains out of paper-clips) in order to justify their undeserved and definitely non-salary-capped wages. They'll probably even find a way to bend it round so that we end up getting a points deduction.

Forgive me for being cynical, but IMO, once Hudds had lost, the motive for reporting this so-called incident, i.e. putting Fielden and Wigan off their game, had gone, and as the idiot involved - a notorious idiot, by all accounts - didn't fancy having to explain himself to a higher power, the accusation (aka the downright lie) was graciously withdrawn.

nitsua posted:

Shevi 4 life posted:
What was it put on report for??? just rewatched it on sky nothing seemed wrong

Evidently he made a racist remark.

What constitutes a racist remark anyway?
If a white guy calls a black guy "a black b.....d"
it's racist. If a black guy calls a white guy "a white b.....d" it's not racist. Considering the number of times that Fileden was smacked round the head last night it's not surprising he might have made some remark. And what about the reply?

GGCSENSECT posted:

nitsua posted:

Shevi 4 life posted:
What was it put on report for??? just rewatched it on sky nothing seemed wrong

Evidently he made a racist remark.

What constitutes a racist remark anyway?
If a white guy calls a black guy "a black b.....d"
it's racist. If a black guy calls a white guy "a white b.....d" it's not racist. Considering the number of times that Fileden was smacked round the head last night it's not surprising he might have made some remark. And what about the reply?

:eusa17:

How about:

"When I realised that my team were going to lose; thereby lessening our play off chances, I thought that it might be handy to get one our opponents banned and hopefully scupper their play off ambitions"