Time people woke up, ideally the idiots running the sport but worse the likes of IL / Rads / Wane. I am a nobody, an amateur sporting thug but I know enough to understand what type of foul plays causes serious injury etc.
So to Mike and co
Some damn fine people on here but not one of you realised how scummy the action of James Green was (far worse than Ben Flower) and the RFL sunk to its lowest ebb with its non reaction.
I said at the time the Ben Flower farce was only worth it if it led to lasting long term change in RFL disciplinary procedures (Mike was an ass about that too) and I said it would not and would be forgotten in a matter of weeks and hey presto it has.
BTW if IL is serious about this Wigan / Saints relationship I expects to see him and Rads and Wane if he can manage it speaking out in support of Saints.
Unfortunately CP and God, the egos of some will still not allow them to admit they were wrong and are now looking pretty foolish. The Green incident just outlined/confirmed what we already knew, that things are laughable at times in this once great sport. To coin a phrase you use CP but on a different topic, the sport is played by lions (in general) but sadly led by donkeys!!
I feel another lockdown coming on!! :eh:
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
This story states McManus is unhappy with inconsistency in the disciplinary process. I haven't ever said that things are consistent. They are not. If I think that one decision is basically OK that does not imply that they all are. At the time I disagreed with you that the club could use this incident to affect the disciplinary outcomes. You thought we could. I thought it was probably the worst possible time to make a fuss about disciplinary injustices. You thought it was a good time. I asked what you would do to improve things. You wanted a tariff system, but rewritten. We have a tariff system and I couldn't get out of you explicitly how you wanted it rewritten. I think thats how we left it.
If you think that because I disagree with you on the severity of BFs ban and the clubs reaction that I disagree with you on all aspects of the displinary process then that is wrong. IMO the disciplinary is flawed, it lacks accountability, there is some transparency but not enough, its amateurish.
However, I maybe missing the point here. Please tell me explicitly why this article proves you right and on which issue.
BTW IMO there is a pretty good chance that IL/SW and Rads will come out and suggest that the disciplinary can be improved. The timing now is much better - and they will be being supported by a "wronged" party.
There have also been some comments about me and others who didn't have a problem with the BF ban being unable to admit to being wrong. I think I could admit to being wrong if you can explain why I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong aobut that. But if someone tell mes clearly why this incident makes BFs punishment wrong then perhaps I will be able to see it. Please try not to write something like "if you can't see it now you never will and there's no point in arguing" because there must be something here I can't see based on the reaction.
I'm with Mike. This from McManus 'proves' nothing. The system is still flawed and being transparent doesn't fix that unfortunately but none of that changes how bad what Flower did was and none of it means Wigan would have looked any better by getting on top of a high horse right at the time when a player representing the club was headline news for something awful.
Like Mike says, now might be a better time to put something forward, although it doesn't need to be done publicly either. Things like banning players becomes emotive and whether or not you mean to show bias or self interest it comes out that way to everyone else. Best to try and find a neutral way of presenting these things. Not sure there is one. Maybe Collier's RLIF could coordinate something that reviews the systems in place.
It comes down to 1 thing either Flower was harshly punished which some says he was and some say he was not. Whilst many of us argued with this a few points were missed in the hysteria of which game the incident took place.
1. Was that any worse than Rangi Chase's incicent for Cas 2 years ago.
2. Was the 1 game ban and the EGP for LH adequate for his involvement with the GF incident.
3. Was that any worse than the 4 punches Eddy got 2 weeks earlier (after all it was direct contact to the face)
Its not the ban CP is or has been arguing about its the severity when you take into account all that has gone on before. He was arguing this from the moment the ban came into place.
I know most knows the the RFL is inconstant on the disciplinary you only need to look at the bans LH, Chase and the Wire player had for the 3 incidents above.
You can not have it both ways saying you know the RFL is inconstant bans a player for 10 games for 2 punches but give another less than 5 for 4. Where the incident takes place should be no reflection on the punishment but in this case it was.
CP has been vocal to the point of been a dog with a bone but he for me is correct. It was very simple Flower ban was more to do with keeping the media happy then following the disciplinary process. I have not seen the Burns incident checked youtube this morning and its not in any highlights. By all accounts its a bad one.
The problem is that RFL have made a rod for their own back now if we get a player sent off tomorrow and is handed a severe ban compared to others that have gone by it will bring in another question is the RFL biased. Just seen the 2 Saints tries from the HKR game and that shows to me how bad the game is run and how bent the commentators are as well.
I have no faith in Bentham as a ref (see the Wilkin v Senior where he is told by the TJ that it is direct contact to the face and gives him a yellow card), RFL is run by idiots who have no idea how to run the game. For me the RFL is not only poorly run but is bent as well you can not ban a player for 6 months whilst handing out punishments for direct contact to the face with 1-2 bans, but in the smae process hand 3-5 games for poor tackling.
Its time for the NRL to take over SL and we become part of their governing body. NRL is years ahead of us on the pitch off it its Centuries ahead.
Sorry for the extra rant but its derby week slight tension building up.
thegimble wrote:It comes down to 1 thing either Flower was harshly punished which some says he was and some say he was not. Whilst many of us argued with this a few points were missed in the hysteria of which game the incident took place.
1. Was that any worse than Rangi Chase's incicent for Cas 2 years ago.
2. Was the 1 game ban and the EGP for LH adequate for his involvement with the GF incident.
3. Was that any worse than the 4 punches Eddy got 2 weeks earlier (after all it was direct contact to the face)
Its not the ban CP is or has been arguing about its the severity when you take into account all that has gone on before. He was arguing this from the moment the ban came into place.
I know most knows the the RFL is inconstant on the disciplinary you only need to look at the bans LH, Chase and the Wire player had for the 3 incidents above.
You can not have it both ways saying you know the RFL is inconstant bans a player for 10 games for 2 punches but give another less than 5 for 4. Where the incident takes place should be no reflection on the punishment but in this case it was.
CP has been vocal to the point of been a dog with a bone but he for me is correct. It was very simple Flower ban was more to do with keeping the media happy then following the disciplinary process. I have not seen the Burns incident checked youtube this morning and its not in any highlights. By all accounts its a bad one.
The problem is that RFL have made a rod for their own back now if we get a player sent off tomorrow and is handed a severe ban compared to others that have gone by it will bring in another question is the RFL biased. Just seen the 2 Saints tries from the HKR game and that shows to me how bad the game is run and how bent the commentators are as well.
I have no faith in Bentham as a ref (see the Wilkin v Senior where he is told by the TJ that it is direct contact to the face and gives him a yellow card), RFL is run by idiots who have no idea how to run the game. For me the RFL is not only poorly run but is bent as well you can not ban a player for 6 months whilst handing out punishments for direct contact to the face with 1-2 bans, but in the smae process hand 3-5 games for poor tackling.
Its time for the NRL to take over SL and we become part of their governing body. NRL is years ahead of us on the pitch off it its Centuries ahead.
Sorry for the extra rant but its derby week slight tension building up.
Very good post and I agree with CPW and others that Ben Flower has been hung out to dry by Wigan and the RFL
Im also really not sure what point this is supposed to be proving.
Im the same as Mike, i accepted the things that were happening but i never once said the panel was inconsistent nor that the punishment to flower and LH was correct, merely that i understood why they were.
Humans
Humans make the system flawed and it will always be flawed because there is no real way of being consistent as far as im concerned in an impact sport such as ours.
The problem is everyone see's things differently and if its your team who is the aggrieved party you see things again differently and if its a certain player again things become different.
Example
Rob burrow launches a shoulder charge on Lee Mossop - result we would all probably have a laugh a 4ft 2" 9 stone man ping off a 6ft + prop. nothing would happen, nothing
Lee Mossop shoulder charges rob burrow - this more more than likely land a massive ban/fine and media outcry
There is no difference in these 2 actions simple the result of them.
EM is complaining because burns was injured - hell if LH had of broken BF cheekbone with his initial actions LH would have been sent off and banned but he didn't. Theoretically it doesn't make what he did any different but realistically it really does.
So i await what point this is trying to prove because it certainly hasnt made me feel any different about my views after the incident or now.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
Though I understand the emotional response, the considered approach says take the rap and address flaws in the system later, with a carefully thought-out strategy, and not clouded by one emotive issue. (Coincidentally, if Ben had adopted this approach, things may have turned out differently?)
Ben flower brought the game into disrepute on the highest platform in the GF, the RFL panicked because the world was watching and handed him a severe ban to imply to the world they know what they are doing. Lest not forget the police also looked into the BF incident maybe just maybe the RFL and the clubs severity was for the benefit of GMP so no further charges where needed.
We do not know what happens in the background The RFL and club may have been guided by legal know how's on how to handle the BF incident so that he didn't get a caution or charged etc.
The Green incident stinks and has not been punished accordingly and as someone has said maybe clubs (plural) has written to the RFL about it behind closed doors.
BTW I think you are both right.
All this is only my opinion of course so it is open to scrutiny and can be disagreed with but it is my 2 pennies worth and I won't go out of my way to defend it or ram it home if it is disagreed with as it is only my opinion and I couldn't care much if it is right on the money or wrong.
