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.

He is just using any statistic he can get to justify his argument and refusing to look further as it will not uphold his argument any further.

I'm not looking at any further statistic because I don't have time to - as much as I'd like to compile a full model on the matter, life gets in the way. It's not any statistic, I've given my reason why I used the statistic I did and you yourself said it was a fair point.

You can ask "but whose perception is it" all you like - but it's clearly a common held belief amongst fans outside of your club. I think Wigan play closer to the line than other clubs, the stats I provided backed that up. I've not accused Wigan of being dirty or anything else, but I can understand how people interpret the citings as such (that doesn't mean they're right).

If wigan as a club don't want to be accused of "thugby" they need to step in line with the number of citings (the number of times they get close to stepping over the line) with other clubs - whatever that takes.