Jump to content

Wolves sign Josh McGuire


Recommended Posts


We long ago stopped lynch-mob justice, assigning it to trained , experienced and qualified professionals, in society and in rugby league discipline. 

"The independent Operational Rules Tribunal was chaired by His Honour Judge John Thackray QC, with two former professional players as side members." 

In addition, there was legal representation on McGuire's side at least, I understand.  

Why would we need to know the exact words he used? Why would we not trust their decision? 

Edited by JohnM
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chris22 said:

It appears that he can appeal.

 

Yeah, I read that earlier which is one of the reasons I asked. But I also read that we intended to appeal last time, but couldn't as he had a full hearing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be found, in the opinion of the panel, to have lied at two separate hearings in a matter of months is quite remarkable from McGuire's perspective. Kasiano doesn't come across magnificently either.

Regardless of whether you think McGuire used discriminatory language or not, and only McGuire and Charnley know, I'd like to think almost anyone would think insulting a person regarding a disability is particularly unpleasant.

I think it's the right call by the RFL to come down hard where a player is found guilty. Our sport is doing a lot of good to engage individuals with disabilities, and Warrington to its credit are leading that, anything that seeks to undermine that work must be stamped out. This punishment shows we are serious.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

If McGuire feels he has a case, he can appeal....and should. He does however, need to be very sure of his grounds for doing so, not based on what forum members think, but based on due process and evidence.  For sure, though, he's going to be on the end of some subtle sledging and up-winding when he eventually retakes the field.

Well let's hope the next time he takes the field it's back in Oz. A rather unsavoury character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Faithful1865 said:

Well let's hope the next time he takes the field it's back in Oz. A rather unsavoury character.

We stopped transporting miscreants to Australia years ago.🙂🙂

Let's rathe hope he rehabilitates here and delivers some value to the game first.

Edited by JohnM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/07/2022 at 22:35, Ragingbull said:

I dont want to see Wire fans moaning next year when hes up in front of the beak every other week.  

You know exactly what your going to get with Josh. If you sign a player like that you have to accept the consiquences. 

Wonder if Skybet will run a book over who will miss the most games through suspension next season? 

Prescient post from nearly a year ago 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

They have, the tribunal is chaired by a QC and Maguire had legal representation.

Just a small thing it's McGuire not Maguire. And I mean by legal representation in regards to an appeal and we're the evidence would hold up in a different legal settings, but I am not a legal expert and will leave it to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I read that earlier which is one of the reasons I asked. But I also read that we intended to appeal last time, but couldn't as he had a full hearing. 

Never heard that before. You have always been able to appeal. They probably decided not to last time. After all they will have seen and heard the mountain of evidence at the initial hearing and whilst you can question the ability of some involved the solicitor, Cramer, isn’t an idiot

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Never heard that before. You have always been able to appeal. They probably decided not to last time. After all they will have seen and heard the mountain of evidence at the initial hearing and whilst you can question the ability of some involved the solicitor, Cramer, isn’t an idiot

No it was definitely not available option last time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Never heard that before. You have always been able to appeal. They probably decided not to last time. After all they will have seen and heard the mountain of evidence at the initial hearing and whilst you can question the ability of some involved the solicitor, Cramer, isn’t an idiot

 

15 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

No it was definitely not available option last time. 

Appears to be contradictory reporting on this. This states he could appeal. 

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/23323054.warrington-wolves-unlikely-appeal-josh-mcguire-ban/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

That's the trouble you never know what actually happened.

Have to assume it was poor reporting saying he couldn't appeal. Appeals have always been in place and this seems to confirm he could. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Have to assume it was poor reporting saying he couldn't appeal. Appeals have always been in place and this seems to confirm he could. 

The poor reporting or poor use of words in a report is much more likely 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Any link as you are entitled to an appeal under the bye laws

No just read it,but I have read so many items I am struggling to see who's accurate.But as Dave T says that report was incorrect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just a small thing it's McGuire not Maguire. And I mean by legal representation in regards to an appeal and we're the evidence would hold up in a different legal settings, but I am not a legal expert and will leave it to them.

I believe @Tommygilf is a lawyer (may be wrong) and has given some insight into the burden of proof etc.. possibly could give more in depth if he has time. The "burden of proof" thing is one that I always wonder about simply because the notes are never extensive enough to explain how they fully got to the conclusion, probably because otherwise they would be extremely long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RP London said:

I believe @Tommygilf is a lawyer (may be wrong) and has given some insight into the burden of proof etc.. possibly could give more in depth if he has time. The "burden of proof" thing is one that I always wonder about simply because the notes are never extensive enough to explain how they fully got to the conclusion, probably because otherwise they would be extremely long. 

Whilst the notes are extremely poor (apparently Mcguire has committed an offence next August in the NRL, and they have clearly forgotten to delete the bit about possible injury from the template), I think you can certainly make out the main points. 

- It was Charnley's word vs McGuires

- Mcguire's witnesses heard nothing, and one actually changed their testimony so was unreliable

- Mcguire didn't debate the incident so much, focusing on a 'I would never do such a thing" approach. Which seems misguided for someone with his record. 

- they considered whether Charnley had misheard

- the video backed up something being said by McGuire that visibly angered/upset Charnley

- Charnley was deemed reliable and credible

- Mcguire wasn't 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

- Mcguire's witnesses heard nothing, and one actually changed their testimony so was unreliable

 

Kasiano comes out of this very poorly.  

  • Like 4

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst the notes are extremely poor (apparently Mcguire has committed an offence next August in the NRL, and they have clearly forgotten to delete the bit about possible injury from the template), I think you can certainly make out the main points. 

- It was Charnley's word vs McGuires

- Mcguire's witnesses heard nothing, and one actually changed their testimony so was unreliable

- Mcguire didn't debate the incident so much, focusing on a 'I would never do such a thing" approach. Which seems misguided for someone with his record. 

- they considered whether Charnley had misheard

- the video backed up something being said by McGuire that visibly angered/upset Charnley

- Charnley was deemed reliable and credible

- Mcguire wasn't 

 

Oh indeed, I see that, my thing about "Burden of Proof" is where is the line that it tips over.

With the notes not being great it also makes me wonder if there is more for example while it talks about "you can see the mouth moving" do they have angles that show a little more than just the mouth moving ie you can make enough out that what he says he is saying is blatantly not true.. 

I trust a QC plus 2 ex players who know what its like "in the heat of the battle" will come to the correct conclusion on this type of thing, including the fact that "in the heat of the battle" while excusing some things (or at least explaining them) does not excuse this type of thing. I'd just like a little meat on the bones of the notes to be honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I trust a QC plus 2 ex players who know what its like "in the heat of the battle" will come to the correct conclusion on this type of thing, including the fact that "in the heat of the battle" while excusing some things (or at least explaining them) does not excuse this type of thing. I'd just like a little meat on the bones of the notes to be honest. 

I know this is bottom of the list of importance by a long way, but I'll ask anyway...

Won't he be a KC now?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

I know this is bottom of the list of importance by a long way, but I'll ask anyway...

Won't he be a KC now?

yes.. good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.