Typical and frankly boring/idiotic circling of the wagons type approach on here. Some of our fans actually are happy clapping morons.

We all seem to agree that the judiciary is an embarrassment. Ellis missing this weekend is a big loss and it comes off the back of a howler of a decision by the MRP. If Wigan had appealed, I can guarantee all the happy clapper's would have rightly been behind the club on it. Sadly however they can't get out of their tribal mindset and support another club doing the same thing.

Things won't change, if people just keep laughing at other clubs misfortune in this area. I'd love to see a joint case brought by Saints and Wigan against the RFL. It's wrong, it's corrupt and it's making a mockery of the fans. Doesn't matter tho right, cause it's nice to see Saints lose a player.

When did Wigan fans become the geenyed weirdos that we all used to laugh at?

It’s not just Wigan fans, it’s just RL fans in general. So tribal and idiotic. It’s why I never care about the social media backlash we receive. Everybody hates the disciplinary when it goes against them, and when it does they always call for their own club to make the sort of statement that we have done, and call them out/take a stand. Just look at the Salford fans getting right behind Rowley after his comments too. Yet when we do it, it makes people really angry. It’s just laughable.

Again, you've misunderstood. The "spirit of the cap" is exactly the point I'm making. I said so in so many words! Are you actually reading my posts Stu, or skimming them and replying to what you think I'm saying?

When Wigan tried to use a loophole to get round the salary cap, the RFL came up with a made up charge, that didn't actually exist in the rules and charged them with that instead! The infamous "Spirit of the cap". However Saints are left to repeatedly work against the spirit of RLs operational rules whilst simultaneously claiming they're subject to harsher treatment than other clubs.

Even if they were only subject to the SAME standard as exercised against Wigan they'd be subject to a non existent, made up rule by the RFL. Instead they're left to repeatedly find loopholes in order to further an agenda of self interest.

Unless you think Lees shouldn't have received a ban for doing similar to what other players have been banned for, of course?

I think you'll find most of the posters here are working from the point of agreeing that the disciplinary is, at best, incompetent or, at worst, unfit for purpose.

Most of the posts I'm reading are objecting to Saints thinking they're a special case or particularly hard done to, neither of which bears much scrutiny.

I've admitted earlier that under the current rules/guidelines I can see why Lees was banned.

Also you are making out that we appeal every charge and then appeal every failed appeal. Twice we have done this. Once with the infamous Knowles incident which allowed him to play in the GF and then now this one with Lees.

An appeal to a decision is the right of any club, its not exclusive to Saints. Other clubs have appealed and won/lost in just the same way.

Personally I'm glad that we have the inclination to challenge the status quo and not just accept decisions when we don't feel they are right.

As I said yesterday Lees playing tomorrow night won't be the difference between us winning and losing so it wasn't just a hail mary appeal that we may have tried if say it was Welsby or Lomax. Saints obviously felt that we had a case. No harm has been done, we didn't get extra games and life moves on.

Saints will have had to pay all the resulting costs so financially we are at a loss but fair play to the club for not rollling over and having their bellies tickled.

I stand by a point I've made a few times. What's good for Wigan is good for Saints & vice versa. We're rivals, but we're also incredibly similar both in our history and what our goals are. Big clubs, with big followings, steeped in history with a constant production line of world class rugby talent. Year in, year our we're both there. Challenging, bringing fans, introducing new superstars and creating moments.

Case in point, people thinking the CC final on Saturday was "good for the game" need to seriously shake their heads. Did anyone watch the build up? 20 mins of DB driving around Leigh in a super car and talking to some scrubber in his council house with leopard print hair dye. If that was Wigan, or Saints they'd be showing history making moments. We'd be seeing Offiah, Gill, J Tomkins going 80 or Long winning Lance Todd trophies year after year. They'd be talking about the world champs Vs the biggest draw in the sport. It would have been sold out and this forum would have melted in the weeks leading up to it.

Sadly, we got the two latest flash in the pans who will undoubtedly disappear in a few years. How do I know this? History shows it. Over the last decade we've had that one season from Cas. Hudds won the LLS and numerous Wire/Hull FC cup wins. Where are they now?

Time for the big clubs to have a bigger say in the game and the promote some self interests.

Exactly!

People can think all of the below at the same time-

-The RFL disciplinary process is a mess

-Players are being harshly treated in 'some cases'

-Saints get more bans than anyone else because they commit the most offences

-Saints officials have been hypocritical these past few weeks

Sergeant Pepper goes off on one his rants, while totally missing the point that people can think the above all at the same time. The disciplinary process needs a complete overhaul but that doesn't give Saints fans a free pass to hide behind supposed RFL bias, corruption and incompetence. The facts are they pick up way more bans than anyone else because they commit more indiscretions under the current rules. If we think the rules are right or not, doesn't change that fact. Having a coach go in to a nuclear meltdown one week, then ignore his player doing exactly the same tackle the following week and then topping it off a week later, by lodging two appeals against a challenge that is clearly illegal under the current rules, is frankly embarrassing. Wellens has made himself look like a bit silly this past few weeks and killed his own argument that the game isn't protecting players.

Again, point out where I said you are appealing every charge. If you're going to continually use straw man arguments to "prove" your point, there is little point to the discussion. Stuck to the facts Stu. If your argument falters unless you make things up then it isn't a very good argument in the first place.

As a club you are appealing, not on the grounds of whether a player deserves a ban or not (you already admit this yourself) but whether you can find a loophole. You're not seeking justice here... you're seeking an advantage. Fine. But don't bleat when things have repercussions. Live by the sword, if you will.

Saints are not subject to different standards but, even if they were, do you not think it's of your own making?

It's remarkable that Saints fans think it's the club that is the subject of an agenda against the club. It's not. It's an agenda against 4 repeat offenders. Take those out of the equation and there's 20 something players who manage to play in a Saints shirt without copping multiple bans. Common sense tells you who's at fault.

NB. I am in no way belittling the incompetence of the RFL and it's disciplinary. I'm just pointing out how Saints are not a special case and are equally contributing to this mess. As I said in a previous post, maybe that's the way forward for all clubs and we should all be pushing the operational rules to our own best advantage. If so, can we have our money/points deduction back for the "Spirit of the cap" please.

You raise decent points at times but when you throw childish comments in like 'scrubbers in council houses' people will just stop reading. People come on here and debate things and won't always agree and that's absolutely fine. You throwing out insults only makes one person look silly tbh.

The only part of your post I don't particularly agree with is the bit about Wellens being a hypocrite and in any way embarrassing. He called out Asiata for what is clearly a dangerous tackle technique. You're not honestly saying the Lees tackle on Greenwood was even comparable in terms of how dangerous it is are you?

If he had been asked about the Bell tackle on Bentley and he tried to defend/justify it then I agree he would be a massive hypocrite. As it happened, the question was surprisingly never put to him (genuinely can't believe no journo had the balls) and he therefore said nothing. He isn't going to voluntarily come out and start talking about his own player is he?

Like I said, I don't disagree with your post about our discipline in general earlier in the year and why have we received the most bans. We've had some idiotic moments from Knowles, Matautia, Sironen and Bell this season and I have very little sympathy with most of the charges and bans. The Lees one this weekend just gone I have some sympathy with as it was a genuine attempt at what most of us would class as a good hit. Under the current rules, if they see evidence of head contact I can see why he was banned and said a couple of days ago I have no issue with that.

But to suggest Wellens is a hypocrite for calling out a potentially career/season-ending technique and then appealing a ban for a marginal/debatable high tackle makes no sense to me. The two things couldn't be more different.

You're coming across as patronising now tbh

You used the word "repeatedly" twice so that infers IMO more than once and quite a few. So whilst you didn't say we appeal everything you said "repeatedly" and I have pointed out correctly that we have only done it twice.

Also how do you know what our appeal against an appeal was based on? Where has it been confirmed that we attempted to exploit a loophole? How do you know if Saints felt that the grading was incorrect or not or that they felt Lees was not guilty? You are making assumptions.

On the Knowles GF appeal, Saints won the case over a loophole, that was apparent in the aftermath however that was to allow an important player to play in a Final. Again, Lees is not vital to us over the next two games but they obviously felt there was a case to appeal.

I agreed with him calling it out mate but he cannot do that and then just stay quiet about the Bell one. It doesn't help him that the Rugby League media seemingly whimped out of asking the question though, I'll give you that.

I also am not comparing the Lees tackle at all but to go on record, ranting that the game is failing to protect the players and then admit you've lodged a second appeal on a wording technicality, after a player gets hit in the head, can't be something you'd do if you were so strongly behind protecting the whole games players? I'd have respected Wellens far more this past two weeks, if on the back of his rant, he just said the whole game could go and take a running jump and we'll be simply looking after our owns players, both when fouled and when they are the ones doing the fouls, because ultimately that is what he is doing.

I get your point but again I don't think you can compare the two things (Asiata and Lees) in terms of player welfare, which was what his rant was based around originally. Like I said if he was appealing or defending Bell or any type of cannonball tackle for example then yeah fair enough I would've thought "what are you doing you clown" and I would agree about hypocrisy. I just don't see it in this instance. There is no player welfare issue with the Lees tackle on Greenwood.

The final wouldn't have sold out either.

It keeps my whiskey subscription with Rads going though