'seem' is the key word there. Statistics might help you learn if reality matches perception. Life can be full of surprises when we put our own strongly held views to an objective test.

You Wigan fans

No.

Had Flower known he was unconscious he wouldn't have done either. ( Which is absolutely no defence to punching a prone player - itself a very poor act which deserves a long ban, but not the first time a punch has ever been thrown at a prone player).

You know that thing you sometimes see on television where all the players look like they're moving really slowly? - slow enough even to make considered decisions before any action? Well, it's not real. Players can't really jump through the air defying gravity like that. It's something magic they do on TV - they can actually slow the action down after the event! Incredible I know, but it all makes more sense when you know what they're doing.

Bit reluctant to tackle the rest of it are we? How are those straws you're clutching? Making your hand sore?

Funnily enough, almost all Saints fans I've spoken with (and many on here) are being perfectly sensible and proportional about it, just as every Wigan fan I've spoken with is appalled by what Flower did and would expect (in fact, demand) a long ban. Lance and the St. Helens club also appear entirely rational.

All in contrast to the foaming at the mouth loons who've convinced themselves that one man's moment of madness has nearly destroyed Rugby League and deserves nothing less than a lifetime ban and the resignation of the coach.

Tackling the rest of it would simply turn into a listing of Wigan player's 'sins' versus all the other incidents perpetrated by other clubs' players. So arguing about individual incidents doesn't help determine whether or not the premise is correct - i.e. than Wigan are specifically coached to go out and injure. Hence, some statistics would be far more useful - and if they prove your point, then so be it, you may indeed have a point.

Don't worry, he wouldnt dream of defending it, its just not as bad as it looks (slo-mo and tv magic made it look worse) he didnt really mean to do it (how could he know he was unconscious it all happened so fast) and it happens all the time (he surely isnt the first to punch a prone player, the fact he was unconscious is irrelevant because Flower didnt have time to check that before he cocked his arm back and swung unmolested at Hohaia's face)

But no-one is trying to defend it yeah, but Hohaia gave him a forearm smash worse than Lamb on Hanley just before it. No-one wants to mitigate it but you know props are going to swing after that and if Hohaia happens to be unconscious at them time, well thats not Flowers fault (even though he knocked him out)he didnt even know before he hit him again.

Nor would your statement. The proposition is one of intent not of success.

The only possible proof of intent would be, i don't know, a coach or manager saying that they wanted you to hurt people, perhaps an instruction to knock them out or be reckless in their play?

If only we had video evidence showing such behaviour?

The only 'defence' I have ever mentioned is that I don't believe he knew the guy was unconscious. That is all. You've already said you think it makes no difference (recklessness being no defence). That's fine. I happen to think it makes a *bit* of a difference. Not in the rules, or in the law (although it might), but just in common morality - i.e. if he told me in the pub that "yes, I knew he was out cold but smacked him anyway" I'd be so disgusted that I'd want him to never play again, at the very least. Whereas if he said "I don't know what came over me, but I honestly didn't know he was out cold", I'd be saying something along the lines of "Jeez, you were out of control, you need to sort yourself out, take your punishment, apologize, and make sure it never happens again".

None of the minor incidents in the build up are particularly relevant (I suppose perhaps technically they're relevant in terms of explanation, but certainly not in terms of justification), and I've never claimed otherwise.

If the intent has been there for several seasons (as most Wigan haters claim), you'd expect some statistical evidence that it was having an effect. If it's not having an effect, then it doesn't even matter, it's just a team making fools of themselves by intended to injure and failing.