Wigan witch hunt strikes again.

Everyone hates us, we dont care.

Lets smash all comers now and win the GF for Mickey Mac.

The guy is a bit of a loose cannon and his previous offences won't have helped his cause. It was only a few months since he last red card. Very disappointing for the fans I'm sure, but the blame lies with the player himself. Hopefully Wane can coach some controlled aggression into him as he matures.

However, if you remember back to the last time our sides met you may also remember that our player Magennis was sent off and subsequently banned for three matches and he did what McIlorum did: he blindsided his victim. So the RFL is being consistent in dishing out this penalty and I think they have the ban spot on.

Plus Magennis got put on his 'arris, which kind of reduced his credibility even more.

Except that is not how the disciplinary system works.

Both McIlorum and Magennis were charged with a Grade C offence. Tackling late and high is not a Grade C offence per se. It is the 'reckless' element of the charge which is the relevant part (all Grade C offences are 'reckless').

One player's late and high tackle may be deemed as accidental, or as already committed, and attract as little as a penalty. Punching can attract as little as a Grade A offence (Magennis punched).

The one similarity between the two events which I believe has been interpreted as 'reckless' - ie the element of the event that has attracted the Grade C charge - is that on each occasion the victim was not aware that the perpetrator was about to do what they did and so was unable to defend themselves or take evasive action. They were both blindsided, and it is that element to the event which has been considered 'reckless' and which has attracted the same charge for both players, even though both events looked totally different.

I don't really understand the rationale for appealing the ban...usually you'd give more evidence (or add something to the proceeding) rather than just because you feel the ban was 'harsh'. Prima facie, it looks like Wig*n have done just that as surely the initial proceedings had all the evidence they required, given that the match was televised.

Would like to see the written judgment and what reasoning you lot gave in favour of a reduction.

Sorry but half backs get shotted all the time late when they dont expect it and some are high and intended to hurt them nothing comes of it

The rfl and REFS are to inconsistent and it's not even close it's done my head in all season and tbh put me off the game over here somewhat i get my rugby fix on prem sports watching their refs do a very good job week in week out

It's not just decisions against my players or teams it's others we need 2 refs and video at every game only way to make it fair and bring the captain call in

Three things that really annoy me about this whole incident: The fact that Micky Mac got sent off after 15 minutes when his team were leading 6 -0 and thus missed 65 minutes of a game which Wigan ended up losing - ie his dismissal so early in the game should have been taken into consideration. Contrast that with players who get put on report ( as happens in the vast majority of these cases) and thus their teams are not at all disadvantaged in the game where the incident takes place. Or cases such as Magennis whose dismissal was in the 2nd half when his team were losing by 30 points and thus in no way affected the outcome of the game. That is why it was right to ban him for 3 games, but MM should have been banned for 2.

The other factor which is entirely Wigan's fault is that it was ridiculous to submit the early guilty plea after the Bradford game. Wigan's next game on 8th July was against Wakefield who at the time were struggling. MM should have never submitted the early plea, particularly as he was carrying an injury which forced him to miss the Wakefield game anyway. It would have been far better to have accepted the one game ban from the outset and take the opportunity to rest MM - which is what happened in any case.

And finally,as has already been mentioned, what role did Ganson have in influencing Child to brandish the red card?

You're having to really stretch things aren't you? Halfbacks don't get 'shotted' when they aren't looking, and that was the point I was making.

I did say that a high and late tackle isn't automatically a banning offence didn't I? And you have agreed with me in the part of your post I have quoted.

Therefore, there must be some element extra and that element is that Laffranchi - like the Wigan player in the case of Magennis - didn't see it coming as his back was turned towards McIlorum. Halfbacks are not facing the other way when a defender charges down the ball, even though they may also get hit high and/or late.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... l-rejected Time to move on.

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... l-rejected Time to move on.

Too harsh.

The RFL are a bunch of clowns but hey, we already knew that.

Its not the severity of the resultant injury that's used to determine the ban, its the offence.

Sure I heard the opposite from your folk after Newton's assaults on Gilmour and Long a while ago.