Dunbar

Very harsh comment. I wouldn't have Farrell in my greatest ever Wigan 13 either but that doesn't stop him being a very very good player. For example, if you only included players who make the all time Wigan 13 then you leave out one of Jason Robinson, Martin Offiah or Billy Boston and no-one is going to question any of their credentials.

Has Lomax only thrown 4 passes this half?

If you asked me to name one player who constantly does things that I don't think he should be able to do, I would name Liam Farrell.

Somewhat understandable. As an England fan I would much rather see Roby play half a dozen games for England this Autumn than twenty odd games for Saints next year. And as someone who would have loved to have been good enough to play for my country at Rugby League, you would never have stopped me from playing for England in a home World Cup given even the slightest chance. But that's me. Not him.

I'm not disputing any of that. I am disputing that that you said the score wouldn't have been 12-20 had the Giants have kicked their goals. That is actually a fact... goals in Rugby League are worth 2 points. So tell me. How many points would the Giants have had had they kicked their goals? (p.s. as an assist for you here, don't tell me again that there is no god given right that a conversion or penalty is kicked, I know that, I said 'if' they were kicked).

Yeah, and I said 'if' the goals had been kicked in the post you quoted.

So let me get this straight. You are telling me I am wrong to state what the score would have been had the Giants kicked their conversions but you are then confidently predicting where Chris Hill would have been standing had he been on the pitch? Yep, that all stacks up, no completely bizarre thinking there.

You obviously don't know him well... he never let's anything go!

Just wondering, is Roby one of the marquee players at Saints do we know?

If the goals had been kicked then the score would have been 12-20 before that last try so the goal kicking played a significant part in the loss. Not blaming the goal kicker as it is not the easiest job in the team but simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

I realise it is entirely his decision and he can do whatever he likes but I would be really disappointed if he plays on in 2023 and doesn't play for England in the World Cup. He has done everything he ever could for Saints. As ai say, entirely his his decision.

Do I sometimes get frustrated with Wilkin? For sure. Are there some phrases that he uses that make me want to throw the cat at the TV? For sure. Are there any that I can think of at the moment? Not really.

If you want to outsource the locking of this thread to a contracted and trusted 3rd party, I would do it for a very reasonable fee.

I am going to go out on a limb here. I don't think there is a single person on this forum who has criticised the letter sent in to League Express who doesn't also abhor domestic violence and would condemn it every single time.

I struggle with this logic. I have disciplined people at work for sexist language in the workplace. That was bigotry. But was I equally bigoted for disciplining them for their sexist language?

I haven't said the letter shouldn't have been printed. But the letter presented a bigoted view. I am ok that it was printed and I am also happy to laugh at someone who criticizes something and simultaneously admits that he knows nothing about that said something. That kind of thinking deserves ridicule.

Personally I believe that we should only ever look at comparatives on a like for like basis. The concept of comparing achievements of men and women is flawed due to the reasons I mentioned of differences in size, speed and strength. Women Rugby League players should be recognised for their achievements within women's Rugby League. And just that. The frustration I have is that certain people (not saying this is you) suggest that women footballers or rugby players are not as good as the men and then have a 2 hour argument about who is the best pound for pound boxer in the world because they are happy to accept that size and strength should be recognised as a key differentiator in that sport. Recognise achievements within the context that they are achieved and we will not go far wrong.

I there is a little bit of flawed logic here. In a sport which is dependent on skill (let's say darts, Curling, bowling, snooker etc.) then a woman beating a man is far more realistic when compared to a sport where size, strength and speed come into the equation - of which Rugby League is clearly one.

Saying a woman's achievements should not be compared to a man's while simultaneously admitting that you know nothing about the women in question is bigotry. No matter how many wars he has fought in (whatever that has to do with it).

See, here is what I don't understand about your position on this thread. The published letter was not just someone stating that he doesn't enjoy or follow Women's Rugby League, it was a specific request/complaint to say that Women players should not be compared to men and their achievements (hero status!) should not be listed in a feature alongside men - this all despite his admission that he knows nothing of the women's game and the achievements of its players. Now, this is pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry. But your first contribution on this thread was defending his right send it and the right of League Express to publish it. That is all fine. But you seem to draw the line for your tolerances at people who complain about it. That just seems really weird. If you are ok with free speech then be ok with all free speech. If people want to call out his bigotry then that is entirely their right to do so without it being labelled 'cancel culture' or some other lazy term.

I agree in principle. I suspect there will be very few instances where there is no head contact... they stay down because there was contact felt that either 1) the ref saw but didn't think it merited action or 2) he missed it. At least not giving penalties live will stop people staying down to win them when they could have got up to play the ball.

Seems to me that this is a perfect description of the guy who wrote the letter. And this forum is just pointing that out.

I agree that players stay down to receive a penalty. It is more prevalent in the NRL because every match has a video ref present. The problem is this though. If a player feels high contact and stays down and if the video ref sees high contact then how do we know whether the player was feigning injury in order to buy the time to have that review. Measuring any type of injury like that is impossible... some innocuous looking incidents turn out to be serious and other bing impacts result in nothing. For me, I would say that any foul play not picked up by the ref can only be looked at retrospectively by the review panel and not given on the pitch. This will still punish any foul play while discouraging players from staying down.

I think you probably need a Richard Dawkins type in there to have all bases covered.

Writing a letter to a Rugby League newspaoer suggesting that women shouldn't be showcased in the hero's section and the women's Challenge Cup final shouldn't be at Wembley is also a part of "cancel culture". And if that cancel request had never been made then this conversation wouldn't be happening.