The vast majority of fans are closer than Wane was, should they be policed too? Surely the same rules must apply to all equally? Maybe we should all have a Siri enabled microphone that can constantly monitor what's being said and a swear box be passed around? And then, a chip for the thought police to monitor.

I'm no lover of Wane but his phrase is just an instantaneous exclamation about a situation, if he'd 'mouthed' "That's a fooking disgusting decision", would that be contrued as something to use against him, if not how does that differ to the alledged comment he's made?
Isn't actually the problem in part down to how the broadcaster is constantly looking for moments just like this after contentious decisions, we see it all the time, some people react in different ways, the likes of Wane will vent their frustration directly in words. In that scenario it ISN'T public just because sky have covered it and it isn't directed personally as he isn't addressing anyone just making an angered exclamation.

If this is to be punished and scrutenised and from what some have written it is then we as a society are completely screwed

When he's representing the club and the game, man needs to keep those kind of comments to himself. You can't just say what you like because "it was the heat of the moment."


It's not about being sensitive. It's about doing what is expected of you when you represent someone. Calling referees bent in public is just not acceptable.

The fans so not represent the club or the game in a professional capacity, so no they should not apply equally. It's a ridiculous conclusion to draw from what I've said.

Because there's a difference between the meaning of the word "bent" and the word "disgraceful". The latter could mean that the decision to go to the VR is poor and that he should have been able to make that on the field. It questions the ref's judgement. The former suggests that going to the video ref means the ref had it in for his team. It questions the ref's motives and integrity, and that should be a big deal.


When your attending a game in a professional capacity at a stadium with 40,000 people inside broadcast on national television, you are most certainly in public.

The broadcaster pays millions for the right to broadcast the game. That money has a huge influence on how much Wane gets paid in his role. If he doesn't like that they show his face, he shouldn't be a coach.


Not really. People need to realise where he gets his money from. Too few people seem to get this point. The game gets him his money. The game gets money from sponsors and broadcast rights. That comes from having a certain image. Questioning the ref's integrity, heat of the moment or not, is not an image that they will want.

The game has moved on. The game is more professional. It gets more money because of this. If you don't want the money and want to be saying those things, coach at amateur level for free.

My point is I know a lot of teachers.

And also that you're the only one still banging on about how a coach making a comment out loud but pretty clearly to himself, and who - purely by chance - was caught on camera, should face some form of punishment. You're seeking to impose YOUR lily-livered standards on the rest of us, the majority of whom can see it was a bit naughty, but also can understand the context and brush it off as a non-issue.

Not you. You think a highly emotive outburst should be taken literally. So, you're either a ridiculously delicate little flower who is genuinely offended, or you're a knee-jerk reactionist who truly believes facebook/twitter/instagram levels of outrage belong in the real world. Social media is, for the most, a stupid beast and should be kept at arm's length.

Just because YOU think it was 'totally unacceptable', and YOU bizarrely think Wane is genuinely accusing Bentham of being 'bent', and YOU think he should face punishment, doesn't mean your standards are applicable. Not offence, but shove yer offence up yer arris.

Not really, homophobic comments would be frowned upon in either case. Calling a referee "bent" in the context of being biased could fall under slander laws and would be treated equally.

However, the very fact this thread exists and started down the homophobic route is just pathetic. Let all coaches show there frustrations in vocalisation rather than passively sitting in the stands as if there's not even a game going on and all fans stop being so precious about some words said to nobody but himself.

No coach should have to watch what they say in the context it's just that we have this offend-nobody or fans criticising because they can attitude.

I should imagine that this is first and foremost an issue for the Wigan club. Shaun Wane was at work when he made the alleged comment and as such, Wigan RLFC are vicariously liable for his behaviour; if they feel that his behaviour reflects badly on them or worse, risks some form of sanction, they should speak with him about his conduct in the workplace.

Personally, I don't like to see professional coaches doing their nut like an angry Dad coaching an U13 side; it's not a good look for the sport, the club or the individual concerned.

Wellsy is spot on. Wane has a responsibility in his position for his actions. With the game as good as won I cannot think of any/many other SL coaches would react that way & accuse the ref of corruption. Only the most paranoid would think that way. As a manager I have a responsibility for how I behave in my professional capacity. If I act beyond accepted values & behaviours I have to accept the repurcussions, no matter how stressful my job. Whereas in some work areas of the people I manage it is still accepted that shouting & swearing is part of the job.

Homophobic comments are me then frowned upon of done by a professional sports man. The game has little jurisdiction over fans other than banning them from the ground. They don't work for the game. They're not professionally responsible.

However, you are right about slander laws applying equally, and that would only be if the referee made a complaint and had proof and wanted to pursue it, not the game AFAIK.


In terms of him being accused of homophobia, I agree. Only someone with an agenda would think that he meant it in that context.
It doesn't ignore the other context of the word though.


Coaches can vocalise their frustrations all they want. I'm not against that. Accusing the referee of being corrupt is not acceptable though from a coach. Nor is calling someone a f**, a n***** or any other discriminatory word.

Some people don't recognise their needs to be a line until theirs is crossed.


Why? Why should a coach be allowed to say what they like? This is what I don't understand. He is paid by the game. The game gets money from image And broadcasting rights. They cannot just do what they like. They have to follow acceptable codes of practice like everyone else in their jobs.

It's ironic that people complaining about those being offended are being offended by those complaining.

What other reason would that word come to his head at that time? It doesn't take a genius to work out what he meant. There's a reason that word came out and not "elephant" or "Cronus".


I'm pretty sure the respect code of conduct covers coaches shouting out words such as "bent" to describe match officials in public...
And it's not just my standards really, is it? Your cute little outrage I'd getting amusing.


It wasn't private. No matter how much you keep saying it, being in a stadium of 40,000 people on national television is not private.
Had he been shouting racial slurs, would that still be OK? You don't seem to grasp this concept that he needs to still show restraint.


Yes. I've coached all ages. Your little story is interesting, but not applicable to all adult coaching. You really are narrow minded, aren't you...


There's a difference between being an amateur coach not being paid and a professional coach being paid. The two roles are not equal. Again n something you continue to forget. You can't just say what you like at work.