Exiled Wiganer

I beg your pardon, I should have phrased that better. I should have written that I can see how they could have ended up with Walters getting a long ban.

Under no circumstances should you read my actual words. If you want likes though go on a rant about how awful I am. Watch those upticks fly!

The disciplinary committee thought otherwise after due consideration. They made a judgment call. I am sure you will accept that it is difficult to analyse 2 people trying to do different things at the same time for a couple of seconds. Leyland is fine and dandy, and the man without whom none of this would have happened has been banned for a long time (though not as long as some were hoping).

I agree, reckless was how I described it. I can follow the panel’s line of reasoning. They get a lot more things right than they get wrong.

I agree. If they had applied the force they were capable of applying then yes they could have done. But they didn’t and very happily he isn’t.

Read your own posts. I would suggest you didn’t try very hard. Which is fine. For all I care, you can build a bonfire on Billinge Hill and try to throw them on it. At the third attempt your tone was perfectly reasonable, hence my response.

It does not always, indeed, but it is an indicator. I don’t know whether it is a factor in the disciplinary committee’s considerations (and will accept whatever decision they hand down), but it is indicative of intent, especially here where we had 2 massive men in a position where they were holding someone in the air. I raise it to counter suggestions that they should not play again this year or that they could have killed him.

Just the 2?

I am pleased you have gone beyond offensive abuse to addressing the substance of my point. It wasn’t that difficult was it. Assuming you are a little calmer, I will reiterate my point: the force that was actually applied was evidentially not enough to cause any damage, happily. The neck and head can only ever take a certain amount of force without being damaged. Here there was no damage at all - he was fine within an instant - which gives a clear indication as to the level of force applied. The players holding him could dictate exactly what to do in that instant and if they had intended to hurt him then they could have done so. Your “there but for the grace of god” point does not hold any water at all with me. The level of damage is the perfect way to assess the force applied. They got him in the wrong position and he ended up on the floor with no damage. The reckless as against intentional point is pertinent because it is a standard measure of culpability. I raise it because I only entered this “debate” (which was actually a lynch mob) because we had suggestions that they should be banned for the year and even that they attempted to kill Leyland. That may be the mob’s view - and indeed your own - but that level of anger appears to me to be entirely disproportionate. Hence my counter argument. Now that that is settled, when it comes to any ban, as I always do, I will accept whatever decision the disciplinary comes to. Even if they decide to ban them sine die, which will doubtless delight many on here. I believe the RFL runs a very good disciplinary system which is one of the things that works best in our game.

Look, I know you love playing to your crowd, but my point is sound. They were reckless, rather than attempting to murder him. It really isn’t difficult.

My oh my, aren’t you righteously indignant. It really isn’t that complicated a point. 2 big lads went in, he got tipped up, and over 30 stones of strong men did not hurt him. So, either they had murderous intent and he is indestructible, or it was reckless rather than intended to cause injury.

Please do, though I would reiterate that it is a point that purely goes to intent. Had they intended to hurt him, given their weight and power, the outcome would have been different. They were stupid and reckless, and I would not argue with a ban. But when it is suggested that they don’t play again this year, then I would be breaking my WDL vow not to point out that obvious point.

Feel free to call for me to be banned for the rest of the year. Given that level of “debate” and the suggestion that Leyland’s life was at risk, this topic was in desperate need of some levity.

Please see my longer answer just now. You will be aware how large Walters and Nsemba are. And that the end result was that Leyland was fine and dandy. Which tells you all you need to know about intention. They were, in my opinion, unnecessarily reckless. Happily there was no harm done because there was minimal force.

Leyland was absolutely fine. Which shows the force with which he hit the ground. If they had intended to hurt him, he would have been injured. It was a classic case of 2 men trying to do different things and it going awry in a split second. I expect Nsemba will have a month off and Walters less than that. Never under estimate the WDL.