WiganWarriorsFans.com

...NOT!

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ewton.html

Controversial Great Britain hooker Terry Newton today took the unusual step of thanking the game's disciplinary committee for their leniency.

"The disciplinary board was very good," Newton told the Bradford Telegraph & Argus. "They obviously knew about that other ban but they didn't take it into consideration and solely looked at the incident from the weekend.

Why not? I thought a previous record was one of the criteria?

GeoffN posted:

Why not? I thought a previous record was one of the criteria?

Isn't obvious!? he plays for Bradford now, Remember players are only given huge bans and made examples of when they are wearing cherry and white

I think the RFL like the attention, if there were strict fixed punishments then when people did a reckless challenge you could say 2 match ban..end off.

The current system means that no one is sure what the punishment will be so people are waiting for the RFL to make the announcement and discussing possible punishments and it all creates one big fuss, which is just perfect if you want attention.

I think the big ban Newton got was another attention seeking ploy by the RFL, ok it needed punishing but there were similar incident that only got 2 matches bans and some unpunished, instead the RFL gave him a big ban hoping to get into the news and into the newspapers.

If he was wearing Cherry and White he'd of got longer! i would of put both my big toes on that!

to true....

if you have commited the foul in a warriors top u get double the ban you would in any other teams colours.........

Have people seen the Newton incident. Saints fans were crying about it after the game so I thought mmm Terry has been naughty etc. However, when I saw the incident he simply tracked Wilkin across after he had passed and gave him a short relatively harmless stiff arm which is very much different to a proper stiff arm. In terms of consistency had Terry punched Wilkin he would have got no ban but could have done more damage.

The RFL disciplinary is a joke

cpwigan posted:
However, when I saw the incident he simply tracked Wilkin across after he had passed and gave him a short relatively harmless stiff arm which is very much different to a proper stiff arm.

Are you being sarcastic here? He smacked a player, not expecting to take any challenge, with a stiff arm in the bottom of the jaw. Hitting a player who is not expecting it should be a red card. He should have got much more than a 2 match ban.

Rob it was more a petulant I am peed off and a lazy git stiff arm. Whilst it was illegal it was not a, I am going to break your jaw stiff arm. Some Saints fans agree. However, they pointed out he did several challenges and the one on Gilmour that drew blood was far worse than the Wilkin one.

There is a huge difference between real vicious intent and stupidity. Every referee needs to learn that.

cpwigan posted:
There is a huge difference between real vicious intent and stupidity. Every referee needs to learn that.

Neither is acceptable. You could tell by the way Wilkin fell to the floor that it wasn't just a silly, frustrated tap. He hurt him. For this there is no excuse.

His excuse, read out on Boots 'N' All was worrying too. He blamed it on being tired at the end of a match. He's going to be tired at the end of most matches he plays in, does this mean that all players are in danger of being hit around the head.

I think rather than just tired, he was tired and frustrated and is the type of person who loses control of his self discipline in such situations. I am not saying that makes it acceptable BUT it is the reality.