It would be interesting to see the minutes of the disciplinary hearing, to know the process by which this case was judged. If no officials heard anything (which is presumably the case, as no action was taken on the field), then were they going purely on the evidence of an opposition player or players? If so, that sets a precedent that could very easily be manipulated in future.

The hearing is chaired by a judge. They understand due process and all that.

I'm sure they do. My point is, does that 'due process' include relying on and accepting evidence that can't be viewed as impartial?

For all we know one of our own players could’ve said they heard it, someone who knows josh personally and thought that isn’t right? that would surely be the tipping point in the evidence required to find him guilty?

I think a system chaired by a judge has to be trusted.

Just being curious and playing devils advocate here,but did you say the same last year when Knowles won his appeal using the same process ?

I didn't comment on it, but yes I would have.

Well that's fair enough then. I'm not sure what to make about the Mcguire case, on one hand there seems to be very little actual evidence to back it up and it seems to be a case of one person's word against his and IF he is found guilty on that basis then it opens up a whole can of worms. On the other hand IF it is true what he said and about who it was said about then he needs the book throwing at him. I accept sledging goes on in the game,it always has,but you just don't go past a certain point with it.

The ref heard McGuire last time, but no official heard anything this time. So this stems from Charnley just saying McGuire said something and being put on report.
But there must be more to it than that, or any player could say someone said somthing and get them banned. So i can't see this ban just being because a player claimed he said something.

It's embarrassing for us to try to question the process or the severity of the offence. It's a dark day for our club and one we need to seize before it sullies our strong reputation as an inclusive community club.

Just to add…

Not condoning McGuire at all, he is bang out of order. However, I thought what happened on the pitch stayed on the pitch. There must be lots done and said in every single game whilst trying to wind the opposition up. Is Charnley the biggest snake of them all for snitching not once but twice? Hasn’t he got an axe to grind with Warrington and hasn’t he used this situation to heap trouble on his former club and team?

Also, there were rumours that another Warrington player had given McGuire the full sp on Charnley’s kid. If this is true shouldn’t this other player also be reprimanded for loading the gun?

I also agree that the punishment does seem to outweigh the crime here. Some of the physical stuff is getting away lightly by comparison.

It’s a man’s game currently played by men acting like kids. The game is going down the pan.

What do the minutes say? I’m on holiday and haven’t had the chance to sit down and try to find therm. TIA.

Quite

No minutes as far as I can see.

One of the most disappointing things is that McGuire seems to have lied about the first offence. He was quoted as saying (not verbatim) 'I said something bad but I didn't say THAT'.

Someone mentioned to me that whilst at Currie's testimonial dinner at Burtonwood that he stated that he was unaware that the slur he used was so frowned upon in this country when it isn't in Australia.

So his earlier denial doesn't hold water. Not good.