More like you used a set of figures to prove a point and deliberately did not use the others as be honest you knew the players banned of both clubs. As that's an easier count than citings.

But again that figure never suited you so you used citings to point something out. I look at all the figures and not the ones suited to what i am trying to prove and then come up with an argument to justify those set of figures.

Except I didn't look - but if that makes you feel better fine

I don't care what people's perception of wigan is particularly. One way or another - I chose a set of statistics for the purpose originally asked for - and no more

Sorry, but that doesn't add up either.

What if, as I understand is the case, the citing committee is not made up of the same members each week? One member of the panel, on any particular week, may take a more robust view on, for instance, dangerous throws, whereas the week after, all the members of the panel make not give a crap about that. For it to be consistent, and therefore statistically relevant, the element of perception must be taken out of the equation, and as you have proven with your own perceptions, it cannot be.

To say that Wigan play closer to the edge of the laws than anyone else, because a panel made up of different people each week says so, is just daft.

Except his stats are wrong, which everyone seems to be ignoring

You have to laugh at all these bandwagoners. So confident that Wigan are the dirtiest team in SL that they spit their dummy whenever their own teams' infractions are mentioned.

They're all available on this thread already but who knows who's right. I'm guessing it's not Jack though.......

No one else has done a player already out on the deck.

Saints had two players betting against their own team a few years back, no other SL team has beaten that record either.

I realise that the above is completely irrelevant, but then again so was your comment.

Here's what I've picked up from a few threads over the last couple of days:

If the stats don't show that Wigan are dirty, the stats are wrong.
If Wigan players havent been penalised any more than other players, it's because they get away with things.
If opposition players don't get injured any more against Wigan than other teams, it's not from lack of trying on Wigan's part.

In short, even if all the evidence point to the contrary people are still going to claim we are a dirty team.

Looks like Wigan need to bring in Mr Bailey and Mr Ablett, to give lessons in good manners and behaviour.... Naughty naughty Wigan... Looks to me like perceptions have gotten Wigan cited, but that a cold look in the light of day, found us not quite as bad as presumed...

Well in this case they clearly are.

Not to let a few facts get in the way of anything but....

doing a quick few sums from the SL stats page (regular season only I think - it's a bit sp on dates). Using a little from the old fairplay method (pen = 1pt, RC = 4pts, YC = 3pts)

P RC YC FP
Cats 200 0 4 212
Giants 193 0 3 202
Wigan 187 0 5 202
Salford 195 1 1 202
Hull FC 179 1 4 195
KR 179 1 3 192
Wakey 181 0 3 190
Widnes 174 0 3 183
London 165 1 2 175
Cas 155 0 5 170
Stains 161 1 1 168
Wire 155 0 2 161
Bulls 151 0 1 154
Leeds 141 2 1 152


In 2013:
Rovers 251
Dragons 241
Giants 232
Warriors 227
Tigers 226
Broncos 218
Vikings 218
Wildcats 214
Rhinos 211
Saints 207
Wolves 206
Bulls 201
Reds 194
Hull FC 191

2012:
Vikings 276
Hull FC 243
Bulls 241
Saints 234
Reds 227
Broncos 227
Giants 224
Dragons 223
Wolves 215
Rhinos 215
Warriors 214
Rovers 211
Tigers 201
Wildcats 197

Yes, clearly, and you haven't brought any facts to the table, you have just done the usual lazy perception thing, and poured scorn on other peoples to suit your agenda.

I don't mind if you find my stats to be incorrect, but at least do me the honour of actually trying to refute them with some of your own.

Please forgive me if I find it hard to take you seriously when you are too lazy to back up your own perceptions.

Theres a difference between biff and what flower did.