Page 1 of 1
Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:36 pm
by jobo
The old RL hierarchy strike again. Radford, quite rightly, blatantly belts a player not in a position to defend himself, gets a 1 match ban, which is overturned on appeal. Fielden on the other hand was obviously more guilty than Radford, when he was stamped on, belted then had a go back against half the huds thugs.
If their incompetence wasn't so serious you'd roll over laughing.
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:02 pm
by gpartin
jobo wrote:The old RL hierarchy strike again. Radford, quite rightly, blatantly belts a player not in a position to defend himself, gets a 1 match ban, which is overturned on appeal. Fielden on the other hand was obviously more guilty than Radford, when he was stamped on, belted then had a go back against half the huds thugs.
If their incompetence wasn't so serious you'd roll over laughing.
Fielden didn't appeal did he?
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:24 pm
by cpwigan
What it shows IMO is that we need to appeal more.
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:39 pm
by x Wigan Warrior x
i agree .... we should appeal more.
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:23 pm
by KOOCH
Whilst not condoning what the rfl have done. I most definately :eusa2: :eusa2: anyone that smacks Bailey one. Bailey is just the same as Mason in as much as the fact that he his sneaky. How often have we seen the likes of Mason,Bailey,etc punch someone whilst being incapable of defending themselves. As I have stated previously I do not condone the rfl over- turning of the ban.As this in itself tells players that it does not really matter that a player is prostrate on the ground because he is fair game for thugs to take pot shots at.That is unless you are a Wigan player retaliating against a sneaky coward who hides behind his team mates when the going gets tough. The rfl should send out the message that it is wholey unnaceptable to take the law into your own hands. Saying that it would also help matters if the refs where consistent in their dealings with incidents of this nature. Once again I :eusa2: the smacking of Bailey on this and every occasion.
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:37 pm
by Kittwazzer
cpwigan wrote:What it shows IMO is that we need to appeal more.
Do we ever appeal at all?
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:44 am
by ancientnloyal
Kittwazzer wrote:cpwigan wrote:What it shows IMO is that we need to appeal more.
Do we ever appeal at all?
Not after Uncle Mo... apparently you can still smell his presence at Red Hall.
If we start to appeal we can cite the Radford case, as can any other player with similar offence.
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:03 pm
by Panchitta Marra
cpwigan wrote:What it shows IMO is that we need to appeal more.
Thought very much the same after Carvell got his ban overturned at the start of the season.
Shy boy gets no cake, as to say.
Re: Radford/Fielden does anybody understand this.
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:11 pm
by Panchitta Marra
Laughed my knads off after Radford split Bailey's eye wide open, it has been coming to the Leeds bully for so long.
According to Radford's appeal, it was only one punch that landed, and what an excellent punch it was.
Just waiting for Cunningham's cummupance before the season ends.
Has anyone else noticed the three cheap shots Cunninham has aimed at Tommy in the last two seasons.