It is mate. But you had the audacity to beat Wigan in the cup this year so you're now on their "naughty list" and can expect to be dragged in to any conversations at totally irrelevant times!
Warrington and Saints are long standing members of the list and you'll have a job to find a thread on this forum where one or the other or in most instances both are not implicated at some stage

Perhaps that's because since and before the times of Les Boyd and Sonny Nuckle both clubs have had their resident thug.
Saints beat us in a final, they've done it before and we have beaten them in plenty finals too.
Sorry, but remind me again when Wire last beat Wigan at Wembley or OT?

Nope. I went to the RFL Disciplinary website, and looked it up.

I find it pays to have some facts before I go running off at the mouth.

More people should do that.

Just for information:

In the last two years Leeds players have been cited 58 times, charged 9 times and received 9 bans.

Wigan players have been cited 66 times, charged 6 times, and received 5 bans. (I have included Ben Flower in these numbers, as I presume that he will get a small ban)

Are you still laughing?

No it's about Wigan's tactics and how one-eyed fans of other teams perceive them to be "underhand."

Now scuttle back off to your cave.

small ban

Glad you enjoyed that bit. I put it in on purpose to give you a reason to ignore the blatant facts that you duly did ignore.

So, based upon the facts, Leeds are bigger thugs than Wigan. Glad you agree.

Um where did you get your facts from? According to the rfl disciplinary page the 17 players Wigan played in the semi final has had 50 citings this year alone. Breakdown being:

Bowen 6; charnley 1; gelling 1; Sarginson 3; Burgess 0; green 0; smith 0; flower 6; mcilorum 5; Crosby 1; tomkins 1; Farrell 4; SOL 4; powell 5; Pettybourne 8; Clubb 2; Bateman 3.

By comparison the Saints 17 who played in the semi have had 29, Warrington had 31 and Catalans 36. the leeds team who lost to Catalans had 29 citings over the course of the year...

All info from the rfl disciplinary page - I chose the semi teams for the comparison because a) I can't be bothered to do the statistics for all 5 squads and b) it seemed an even ground to compare usual playing standards from...

Why choose the citings number to prove a point? Surely it makes more sense to choose a stat from the actual outcomes?

It is conceivable that every player from every team could be cited after every game, but if none of them actually get charged, what does that prove?

Citings are "things that are close to the line so we look into it" - charges only come if the line is crossed. But this is precisely the perception - Wigan play closer to the line than most other teams (which is why they're more cited) which gives the perception of being dirty, even if it isn't actual foul play.

Hence why I used citings itself.

Fair point tbh.

But how many players got disciplinary action taken against them. From what i can gather Wigan were not the worst in SL.

There is a difference between playing to the edge of the rules and going over them like Hohaia and Flower did on the weekend.

Who's perception is it though? It certainly isn't my perception.

I don't care about perception, I care about facts, as they are the only things that prove anything.

It could also be argued that, in the perception of the committee responsible for citings, Wigan did more things that were close to the line. However, the number of charges that followed proved their perception to be wholly incorrect.