95 replies to this topic

[3owls]

Two mentions on the RFL disciplinary section for Friday's game.

Carvell for his 2nd minute late hit - no charge.

Tomkins for his 30th minute late hit - Grade A charge. Looks like they are simply calling him up for the lateness rather than a striking charge.

Not sure if the site is 100% up to date, but no mention of any other incidents.

The one eyed wigan mob will be eating a different kind of pie tonight, a large slice of humble pie. Any neutral or knowledgable supporter knew it was a bad late tackle but the pie eaters with their small town mentality were still trying to condone it. They make themselves look more foolish every day by trying to defend anything and everything wigan and their players do wrong. Some brown sauce with that humble pie ?

[Padge]

The one eyed wigan mob will be eating a different kind of pie tonight, a large slice of humble pie. Any neutral or knowledgable supporter knew it was a bad late tackle but the pie eaters with their small town mentality were still trying to condone it. They make themselves look more foolish every day by trying to defend anything and everything wigan and their players do wrong. Some brown sauce with that humble pie ?

Mr Numpty you seemed to have failed to repsond to this earlier post by my goodself, which sort of makes your ramblings above look a little silly. At least you have decided to be a bit more honest about your agenda now that you've been rumbled.

It helps when you are willing to accept the decisions of the officials and/or the disciplinary if they adjudicate.

IF Tomkins is pulled I will accept the outcome, will you.

Will you accept their decision?

Edited by Padge, 19 July 2010 - 05:57 PM.

[Hannibal]

Mr Numpty you seemed to have failed to repsond to this earlier post by my goodself, which sort of makes your ramblings above look a little silly. At least you have decided to be a bit more honest about your agenda now that you've been rumbled.



Will you accept their decision?

He won't accept anything mate, as you so rightly said, he is a numpty.

He still considers some kid throwing a lunchbox onto the pitch at Headingley, a full scale riot.

[Dave T]

One thing that does seem strange with this week's disciplinary notes is that there are very few players mentioned. For some previous games, it seemed like every high tackle or piece of foul play had a review typed up on there.

Considering there were three penalties given for late tackles, I would have expected that they would at least look at that and have had something on there. Not saying they necessaily should, I just wonder whether there has been a change in approach to reviewing games.

[3owls]

Will you accept their decision?

Who's been rumbled clueso? The initial post was about protecting "little" players as nathan brown put it. I stated tomkins committed a late cowardly hit on myler and your lot wet their knickers asking why i didn't mention any other incidents during the game. I didn't feel any other incidents were worthy of note and the disciplinary panel seem to agree with me. The cyclops squad then tried telling everyone it wasn't a bad tackle, to which i disagreed, as once more did the disciplinary panel. I was talking about one cowardly action in what had been the televised sky game, not jamie peacock, not ryan bailey nor anyone else. People started quoting historical incidents and in turn i quoted tomkins disciplinary misdemeanours and what i thought about him as a person and player. Some wigan fans unfortunately have a persecution complex and seem to think every thread that doesn't show them or their team in a positive light is an attack on the club. It was a bad tackle and the "little" players need protection from such cowardly attacks. If tomkins is cleared i am man enough to hold my hands up and agree with the panels findings, i don't think he will be though and i doubt certain people on here will be big enough to admit they were wrong. As for not answering your question, i think you know me better than that, i genuinely didn't see it.

[Padge]

Who's been rumbled clueso? The initial post was about protecting "little" players as nathan brown put it. I stated tomkins committed a late cowardly hit on myler and your lot wet their knickers asking why i didn't mention any other incidents during the game. I didn't feel any other incidents were worthy of note and the disciplinary panel seem to agree with me. The cyclops squad then tried telling everyone it wasn't a bad tackle, to which i disagreed, as once more did the disciplinary panel. I was talking about one cowardly action in what had been the televised sky game, not jamie peacock, not ryan bailey nor anyone else. People started quoting historical incidents and in turn i quoted tomkins disciplinary misdemeanours and what i thought about him as a person and player. Some wigan fans unfortunately have a persecution complex and seem to think every thread that doesn't show them or their team in a positive light is an attack on the club. It was a bad tackle and the "little" players need protection from such cowardly attacks. If tomkins is cleared i am man enough to hold my hands up and agree with the panels findings, i don't think he will be though and i doubt certain people on here will be big enough to admit they were wrong. As for not answering your question, i think you know me better than that, i genuinely didn't see it.

I think you will find that I cannot change my opinion on the 'Tomkins tackle' since nowhere on here have I given one.

[3owls]

I think you will find that I cannot change my opinion on the 'Tomkins tackle' since nowhere on here have I given one.

I never said you had old lad.

[Hannibal]

Who's been rumbled clueso? The initial post was about protecting "little" players as nathan brown put it. I stated tomkins committed a late cowardly hit on myler and your lot wet their knickers asking why i didn't mention any other incidents during the game. I didn't feel any other incidents were worthy of note and the disciplinary panel seem to agree with me. The cyclops squad then tried telling everyone it wasn't a bad tackle, to which i disagreed, as once more did the disciplinary panel. I was talking about one cowardly action in what had been the televised sky game, not jamie peacock, not ryan bailey nor anyone else. People started quoting historical incidents and in turn i quoted tomkins disciplinary misdemeanours and what i thought about him as a person and player. Some wigan fans unfortunately have a persecution complex and seem to think every thread that doesn't show them or their team in a positive light is an attack on the club. It was a bad tackle and the "little" players need protection from such cowardly attacks. If tomkins is cleared i am man enough to hold my hands up and agree with the panels findings, i don't think he will be though and i doubt certain people on here will be big enough to admit they were wrong. As for not answering your question, i think you know me better than that, i genuinely didn't see it.

How well do you know Tomkins the "person"?

Do you drink with him?

Are you his boyfriend?

Please regale us all with your tales of nights out with young Joel, and how you came to know him so well.

Go on then, old lad.

[Padge]

I never said you had old lad.

Oh so I'm not one of the cyclops squad then?

[1976PMJwires]

How well do you know Tomkins the "person"?

Do you drink with him?

Are you his boyfriend?

Please regale us all with your tales of nights out with young Joel, and how you came to know him so well.

Go on then, old lad.

Don't start rumours you


PS you had a real pop at me once for saying Mark Lawerence was a up hil gardener :-)

Edited by 1976PMJwires, 20 July 2010 - 06:38 AM.

[Hannibal]

Don't start rumours you


PS you had a real pop at me once for saying Mark Lawerence was a up hil gardener :-)

Who is Mark Lawrence?

[1976PMJwires]

Who is Mark Lawrence?

LMFAO. I wish i knew how to find previous posts, you gave me a right bashing at the time

[Hannibal]

LMFAO. I wish i knew how to find previous posts, you gave me a right bashing at the time

I would still like to know who this guy is.

[1976PMJwires]

I would still like to know who this guy is.

Sorry Mark Lawerenson

[Hannibal]

Sorry Mark Lawerenson

Now i'm getting it.

[Exiled Wiganer]

And every kick? Have a look through the "challenges" after Wigan's kicks and come back to us.
This one eyed hysteria takes the biscuit doesn't it? At full speed it wasn't clear he had grounded the ball, as he slid over with it above him so Joel was right to try to challenge. He's a big lad sliding at speed.
Glass houses doesn't come close.

He was fined £300 but not banned. So he was naughty but not very naughty. There was no action taken against the kick challengers. I will eat a slice of pie of my own choosing, a venison one would be ideal, though with ketchup not brown sauce. Ironically (or cleverly though that's not something one readily associates with 3bells) the Pie Eater nickname comes from eating humble pie rather than Wiganers' conspicuous pie consumption.