Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Yes we were, but can you not see the differences. 1) We never got a penalty. 2) It wasn't put on report. 3) When the review committee looked at the incident, the HKR player (Cory Paterson) was brought up before the disciplinary and given a four match ban.'" You forgot the biggest difference, he plays for Wigan. Terry Newton got away with dirty late tackles for years and the disciplinary just ignored it when others seemed to get pulled up over little to nothing. The Judiciary are as poor and inconsistent as the referee's Not the first time it's been questioned either m.rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 6&start=15

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Yes we were, but can you not see the differences. 1) We never got a penalty. 2) It wasn't put on report. 3) When the review committee looked at the incident, the HKR player (Cory Paterson) was brought up before the disciplinary and given a four match ban.'" You forgot the biggest difference, he plays for Wigan. Terry Newton got away with dirty late tackles for years and the disciplinary just ignored it when others seemed to get pulled up over little to nothing. The Judiciary are as poor and inconsistent as the referee's Not the first time it's been questioned either m.rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 6&start=15

Quote ="No1 Saint"You forgot the biggest difference, he plays for Wigan. Terry Newton got away with dirty late tackles for years and the disciplinary just ignored it when others seemed to get pulled up over little to nothing. The Judiciary are as poor and inconsistent as the referee's Not the first time it's been questioned either m.rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 6&start=15'" So, the referees are wrong, the review panels are wrong and the disciplinary panel are wrong?

Quote ="No1 Saint"You forgot the biggest difference, he plays for Wigan. Terry Newton got away with dirty late tackles for years and the disciplinary just ignored it when others seemed to get pulled up over little to nothing. The Judiciary are as poor and inconsistent as the referee's Not the first time it's been questioned either m.rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 6&start=15'" So, the referees are wrong, the review panels are wrong and the disciplinary panel are wrong?

Sometimes yes. Inconsistent may be a better term.

Did they get the pie eaters off the panel or are they still there dazzling us with there impartiality?? I remember the Kung fu Aspinwall incident mentioned in that well - another example of either staggering bias or stupidity

The tackle seemed complete to me. You can see that Walmsley never lets go of Logan's shirt. Wouldn't you agree?

[url=http://imgflip.com/i/2lc3l[/url

Tackle wasn't complete simple as.

In any event it is a bit much comparing that with Taylor's illegal "tackle". Even the ape brought him off just after or was that just a co-incidence.

Why do you think the tackle wasn't complete?

"When tackled: 2. A player in possession is tackled:
Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground."

Whilst the tackle was technically complete, I can see why a player on the pitch would not presume it to be so, and why a ref would give leeway if he saw it at all. A different angle and you don't see the player being held.

Agreed. Not quite comparable with cleaning up a player from behind who doesn't have the ball,imo.

The point being that Logan Tomkins was in a vulnerable position and Wello dropped on his back. Hitting someone in the back when they are not expecting it is never good really is it?

I don't think you've got the best argument there, squire.

Which bit?

Oh dear.........more tea Vicar

That the two events are comparible in terms of "reasonable offence caused".

Ah, so not my argument after all then, but an argument you made up and attributed to me.

I've never disagreed with your post that the tackle was actually completed, but the placement of your posts about it appear to be in order to pose an obstreperous, tit for tat argument to either imply that a Saints player is guilty of something "just as bad" as the Taylor/O'Brien incident, or to water down the implications of an off-the-ball challenge that left one of our players unable to finish the match.

Club bias aside, you know that one of those events was a lot more offensive than the other and any argument otherwise will clearly be an attempt to rile the Saints fans who frequent this forum i.e. TROLLING.

So pack it in.

Could be worse I suppose, he/she could be a moderator posting something aimed at riling fans on their teams site.

So ban him. I was under the impression Cheery and White had a zero tolerence policy?

Trolling? Oh come on, I agreed that Taylor's was a bad one (and just for the record, in another thread I berated Dudson for his Hong Kong Phooey impression, so I'm certainly not averse to criticising my own) but god forbid I should criticise St Paul for a cheap shot on Logan Tomkins. Rather than simply agree that he was in the wrong you lot have gone to great lengths to deflect any criticism to the point of putting stuff in quotes that I never said! Trolling indeed eh? How you can say "club bias aside" with a straight face is beyond me.

Anyway since you're obviously pulling out the moderator card I'll leave you all to wallow in self pity about a game you WON 3 days ago.

Thankyou.

You cant ban mods can you?

But he doesn't mod on that board, I think that make the difference.

Mods can be banned. But I thought that my comment was on topic, it was even relevant to the game.

Everything else is purely down to what you read into it.

Mods CAN'T be banned, you can ban, try it but it doesn't work.

Really , I never knew I had so much power to rain chaos across the boards.

Maybe you should not have told me that



I did assume my mod powers were limited to my own board.