coley
#21
Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:26 PM
I have no issue with Coley's sending off or ban, and Wigan will cope without him.
#22
Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:30 PM
you clearly can't recall it well.
#23
Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:19 PM
IIRC the camera angles were inconclusive to say the least.
Any more? I am genuinely interested in these lists of high tackles that knocked the player out and made him leave the field concussed.
Is it really a surprise?
According to you Coley's ban was a slam dunk, and the evidence against Morley was "Inconclusive".
Time to open both eyes Dave, just like you seem to be preaching to everyone else.
#24
Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:26 PM
I, just like those Castleford supporters felt that the ball should have gone to David Plange but he put the bit betwen his teeth...and it was a try
Kevin Ward - best player I have ever seen
The real Mick Gledhill is what you see on here, a Bradford fan ........, but deep down knows that Bradford are just not good enough to challenge the likes of Leeds & St Helens.
#25
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:21 PM
Nevertheless examples;
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1600 - Grade C (2-3 matches) becomes nothing despite being found guilty?
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1922 - Worse high tackle than Coley's (in my opinion), not sent off and a poorer previous record - same outcome as Coley
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1596 - One of the most reckless tackle attempts I have seen all season and found not guilty.
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1953 - Contact with head not careless? There was a swinging arm to the head about 2 minutes later that was even worse and wasn't even deemed worthy of review.
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1705 - Different offence but example of leniency in spite of poor previous record for same offence and admittance in guilty verdict of potential to seriously injure.
I stand by my view that lack of consistency is a real issue.
Have you got any of the several incidents relating to joel tomkins and the disciplinary panel up there old lad........thought not. Use of the knees in both games against leeds, coincidence or just a dirty ######? "Cynical and unnecessary" said the panel of mr tomkins sly tactics. Fancy, a wigan player eh, who'd a thought it.
#26
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:31 PM
Senior kicking out..., Webb's whirlwind arms, a chicken wing from Bailey or how about a high shot from Peacock?
Stones...Glasshouses or Kettle...Pot...Black - take your pick.

oderint dum metuant
#27
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:41 PM
This decision is an utter disgrace when compared to some of the things that have been allowed to pass without punishment this season.
I am not saying that the RFL, its disciplinary committee and its match officials are corrupt to the core, it is just that their decisions regarding Wigan make it look like they are.
But who knows the truth eh?
Certainly not me.
#28
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:41 PM
Stones...Glasshouses or Kettle...Pot...Black - take your pick.
Yes we know you're obsessed with leeds but do you have to be so predictable that you quote 5 cases and three are from leeds and two from wire. You're a bit like a stuck record, a bad one at that. Have you got leeds dolls that you stick pins in every night ? You seem to spend most of your energy hating leeds rather than loving your own club, which unfortunately seems to be the trend nowadays. Sad little man.
#29
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:46 PM
Leeds are consistently the dirtiest and most cynical team in the league and what is more they are the worst for back-chat to the officials by a country mile yet little is done about their antics. I wonder why?
#30
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:52 PM
As far as the choice of the five cases, the Wire ones were part of my point given I was responding to a Warrington fan, but the Leeds ones weren't specific, just examples I'd remembered from this season that seemed a little inconsistent relative to Coley's case. I did mention the Cunningham / Stosic example elsewhere, but thats a little old now - if I could have found a Saints example I would have, but unfortunately they have been pretty Saintly this season
As for other clubs, I don't pay as much attention to clubs I don't see as a threat to Wigan's potential success and no specific examples from other clubs really stand out in terms of inconsistency.
Edited by giwildgo, 06 July 2010 - 09:53 PM.

oderint dum metuant
#31
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:53 PM
They're the most exciting and that's why they will have been on the box 3 weeks running on friday. Oh and they're record breaking three in a row super league champions, but you know that. Go round to your mates house and stick some pins in dolls. When did wigan lose its village status, was it when they realised they had a town full of idiots.
#32
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:55 PM
Time for bed...school in the morning.
Trolling is neither big nor clever - I actually thought you'd turned the corner recently with some fairly informed contributions, but now back to the bad old days.

oderint dum metuant
#33
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:56 PM
As far as the choice of the five cases, the Wire ones were part of my point given I was responding to a Warrington fan, but the Leeds ones weren't specific, just examples I'd remembered from this season that seemed a little inconsistent relative to Coley's case. I did mention the Cunningham / Stosic example elsewhere, but thats a little old now - if I could have found a Saints example I would have, but unfortunately they have been pretty Saintly this season
As for other clubs, I don't pay as much attention to clubs I don't see as a threat to Wigan's potential success and no specific examples from other clubs really stand out in terms of inconsistency.
"He doth protest too much". Anyway see you at wembley.........................oh no we won't,silly me. Goodnight.
#34
Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:58 PM

oderint dum metuant
#35
Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:24 PM
http://www.therfl.co...tem.php?id=1600 - Grade C (2-3 matches) becomes nothing despite being found guilty?
Nobody agrees. I take it you thought there was no issue with O'Loughlins 'tackle' on Robinson? Despite Nathan Brown (recognised as a top coach in SL) thinking it was disgusting and threatening retribution!
With such varied views on exactly the same incident, how on earth can the panel win?
#36
Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:33 PM
This guy is clearly a nobhead.
#37
Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:34 PM
According to you Coley's ban was a slam dunk, and the evidence against Morley was "Inconclusive".
Time to open both eyes Dave, just like you seem to be preaching to everyone else.
The inconclusive thing isn't something I have made up, these are the panels words:
The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player’s arms were out but committee not satisfied this case is made out and find the player not guilty of a high tackle as charged.
So they were not satisfied it could have been avoided and they are not satisfied that it was high, yet everybody here saw it. How. Please, somebody show me!
No doubt certain people will put it down to a Wire v Wigan thing, but that's their issue not mine.
#38
Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:45 PM
If anybody can show me the Morley incident I would be happy to review it again and stand corrected. I watched it after the event and because the ball had gone the best camera angle was a long shot which was inconclusive.
The inconclusive thing isn't something I have made up, these are the panels words:
The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player’s arms were out but committee not satisfied this case is made out and find the player not guilty of a high tackle as charged.
So they were not satisfied it could have been avoided and they are not satisfied that it was high, yet everybody here saw it. How. Please, somebody show me!
No doubt certain people will put it down to a Wire v Wigan thing, but that's their issue not mine.
How come your opinion always sides with Wire's point of view?
Is it merely a coincidence?
Stop it Dave, you're killing me.
#39
Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:50 PM
Is it merely a coincidence?
Stop it Dave, you're killing me.
How come you ignore examples of me defending other clubs and players? My defence here is actually of the panel, and I also use an example of a Wigan player who was absolutely slated on here and by a top coach.
Why did you ignore that? Is it merely a coincidence?
If I say something against my club, people like you aren't queuing up to say anything, so I can't really win.
Of all the incidents that have involved my team on this thread, I said Carvell deserved a ban, Morley's was inconclusive (same as the panels), and I haven't seen the Brent Webb tackle against the Wire player.
I'm still waiting to see this TotalRL exlusive video of the Morley incident.
#40
Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:06 PM
Why did you ignore that? Is it merely a coincidence?
If I say something against my club, people like you aren't queuing up to say anything, so I can't really win.
Of all the incidents that have involved my team on this thread, I said Carvell deserved a ban, Morley's was inconclusive (same as the panels), and I haven't seen the Brent Webb tackle against the Wire player.
I'm still waiting to see this TotalRL exlusive video of the Morley incident.
Has anyone else agreed with your, completely unbiased, assessment of the Morley incident?
I demand that, if you are to pass judgement on Coley, you put a link up to the video in this thread. I also demand that you post video evidence of every other case you have stated on here. I mean, without video evidence, how are we to deem that anything is inconclusive?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users













