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

NB I've just re-read the official club statement. The actual words were "we believe the Operational Rules Tribunal made an error of law in its decision or failed to act fairly in a procedural sense"

Thats quite vague and open to interpretation. It could be challenging the grading or challenging the guilt. It could be trying to exploit a loophole but we don't know. Thats my point but please don't assume.

There isn’t a player welfare issue because they banned the player who hit Greenwood high and that is what Wellens wanted with the Asiata tackles. He then is part of an attempt to get a player off on a technicality and that doesn’t add up or sit right IMO.

Ultimately I think most people are broadly in agreement in terms of the main issues. The disciplinary is a mess and needs urgent attention. It’s inconsistent and as proven by Saints appealed appeals, it’s open to be challenged on technicalities, so it can’t be water tight. There is too much focus on head knocks and not enough on other issues. The amount of time spent debating all of the above only highlights what a mess it is. It’s become the most discussed subject, when the disciplinary process should just sit in the background and tick along.

Maybe my choice of words wasn't the best, but the only thing that looks silly is the game.

You rightly, or wrongly beat the drum about the "good of the game" and then aren't happy with people calling a spade a spade. Do you think interviewing that guy in his garden boosted , or improved the perception of the game to either new fans or sponsors? There was probably a better way of me putting it, but it's like it went out of the way to belittle the town and sport.

Those are the issues facing RL, not Saints doing their utmost to keep a winning streak going. Wellens can be as hypocritical as he wants - must top coaches are (not saying he is one by the way) Wayne Bennett, Fergie, Mourinho, Pep all start little fires here or there to either motivate or distract. You think when Fergie moaned about fixtures post CL games he cared about the other teams players? It was all about getting an advantage for United.

ATEOTD, we're both big clubs and we should be right behind the m on this.

Mate, I'm not intending to be patronising but you keep posting that I have said things I haven't. How would you like me to respond exactly? Repeatedly means more than once. You say so yourself in the above post. I said it in that way as it's the 2nd time in less than a year that Saints have tried to get a player off on a technicality rather than because he's innocent of any offence. You ask how I know this: well, as I understand it, that's the only thing you can challenge an appeal on so the appeal is it's own proof. If that's not correct then I will, of course, withdraw my statement but I'm fairly sure I'm right. If, however, the club thought it wasn't a banning offence then I have to say they need to take their Saints blinkers off. That (and less) has been a ban all season.

Your justification for the Knowles appeal is exactly the point I'm making and, at the risk of seeming patronising again, I thought you were better than that. If he commited an offence then it shouldn't matter if his ban covers a final! Players have missed out on international honours, finals, play off games and all points in between because they transgressed in the games leading up to it. That's exactly as it should be! Why should an exception be made because it's a final? I'm staggered you even think that.

I agree with a lot of your points here. I'm a Saints fan first and foremost as you are with Wigan. Woolf was paid by Saints to win trophies and when he withdrew players from international games to increase our chances of winning trophies then that suited me. Yes the likes of Nicky Kiss on here will disagree vehemently and say what about the wider game but I pay good money to watch my team and naturally I want them to win everything.

I'd rather opposition fans hate Woolf but we win stuff than for everyone to say Peet seems like a good bloke because he allows all the Wigan players to play for their country.

As I said, you make a lot of good points and call a spade a spade all you like but you don't know the bloke you're calling a scrubber from a council house and at that stage, the good points become less effective. I actually do know people who know that guy and by all accounts he's a thoroughly decent chap (if a little eccentric) and he loves rugby league, so he's ok by me. The game is portrayed as almost amateur at times, I agree with that and IMG need to start earning their position within the game and work on that perception. There will always be room for a romantic tale though and you can't just brush out the games roots in working class, Northern towns. It's a balancing act and one we need to work on. The players should be superstars but outside of Rugby league towns, nobody knows them from Adam.

Is that not worse Stu? You don't believe they should have done it but you agree with the fact they did? I know you used the word "understand" rather than "agree" but the fact that you're offering it in mitigation suggests you have some sympathy with the decision. Don't you think that's hypocritical? Unless your opinion is that it was the right thing to do in the first place in which case I'm not sure you have any right to object to anything being said here.

However, I think the points being made have become somewhat blurred. If, as you admit above, Saints do push the boundaries to gain an advantage, whether you agree with it or not, why did you object when I said the same?

Exactly.

Wigan 1st and if that's means following the same approach as Saints, then that's fine.