McD bitching about SW

rlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12211/8111748/rl

What a silly comment from Hetherington. Being reckless means you know there is a risk of hitting the head but you carry on regardless. The fact that he doesn't appear to know the difference between that state of mind and a deliberate action says it all really.

Me too !

If all the conspiracies are correct about us not getting a fair crack from the disciplinary panel especially ensuring that MM was not able to play 3 games as well as almost a full game against Saints then the panel have screwed themselves. They had to ban him for Fridays game they had no choice as Wane actually did the right thing and started saying things publicly as otherwise he would have just had a fine. Way too often in SL coaches say nothing and let teams get away with it. The NRL they are more vocal about each others sides.

How can the panel only give McGuire 1 match for an offence on the 1-2 game category but MM is having technically a 4 game ban. I bet someone on that panel at this moment in time is regretting not giving MM less so they could free up McGuire to play on Friday.

So Wane was able to influence the panel this week, but wasn't able to influence the panel when it was McIlorum?

McDermott seems to miss the fact he'd had his say as well in the build up to the decision.

If he wants to compare it to a legal trial then maybe he should have kept quiet as well. It'd be like a witness to a murder saying in the build up to the trial 'yeah I saw him stab her in the head with those scissors but honestly he was just trying to cut her hair and slipped, he's a good lad really'.

He can't have it both ways.

They're getting a bit stressed on the VT too now.

rlhttp://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f

Boo hoo Brian

And I quote "

"We considered an appeal," he said. "There was a bit of merit in doing that. But we thought they gave us a fair hearing. Sometimes you come out thinking you might as well have not turned up but, in fairness to the panel, they listened.

"I felt we put up a good case and I think it went as well as it could have done. If we did anything, we probably got it down from a two-game ban to one game.

"Unfortunately, with what's been said in the media building up to it, it would have been a tough call to not ban him.

"I'm just not sure that in any legal case you'd be allowed to say what you want in the media building up to it."
Which loosely translated means Shaun Wane influenced the panel by getting them to give Danny Maguire a Ban that was less than what his own coach thought he should get?
Plus he doesn't think you can influence any legal case by speaking to the media about it before hand even though He was the one that brought it up in the first place saying he shouldnt get banned for a tackle that he thought "later"he was lucky if anything to get down to a 1 game ban from a 2?

To be fair, if the Disciplinary Panel didn't have a history of showing leniency towards Leeds players, I doubt SW would have even commented on it. Like most people on here, I'm sure he was also expecting McGuire to ridiculously get no ban for what he did.

Right decision, move on.