I would agree tackles are technically battery as well, but in that case there is consent there and it is within the rules of the game. Still, incidents such as high tackles are outside of the rules of the game and so there is no consent. Most of which I would imagine are accidental but then again where do you draw the line and how do you differentiate? What happens when someone makes a high tackle "look" accidental ...

disagree, I think Lances assault on Flower was similar to Newtons and got a 1 match ban. He has been looked upon lightly because he got pasted.Flowers was a bad one and totally un defendable but 6 months is crazy when you look at the season on the whole. Wood got 1 game for hitting Eddie 3-4 times without provocation.

If the Police became involved the game could be end up on a slippery slope - in reality we have seen head butting, homophobia and head attacks in the past season - all illegal out on the street. It would appear inconsistent to enforce the law against some but not others.

If Flower then claimed he was acting in self defence (after all he suffered an attack to the head with Hohaia charged as supporting evidence) then more than one player will be in the dock. Could be a can of worms and will not go any further.

That takes it to a new level. Did you see Newtons assaults on first Gilmore and then Long? The latter had facial surgery and still has eye problems. IMO they were far worse than Flowers because they were deliberate attempts to injure.

Back on the topic Eamon's statement hopefully begins to close this hysteria and certainly had a positive impact on the 5 Live coverage.

Looking forward to good game on GF.

I read the McManus statement tonight on my phone (I love Rugby League site) whilst out having a couple of pints and I think it was a statement that showed compassion and in a way seemed to suggest that we now put it behind us and move on.
What I am going to say now is not condoning what Flower did and he deserved everything he got, but the build up to the match contained more use of the word hatred than I have ever seen in my 60 years of watching Rugby League ( mainly Wigan).
The die was set when Wigan and Wane gave permission for THAT video to be released and it built and built from there and even last week McManus had an article printed in a Newspaper in which he said that he hated Wigan.
It was almost as if there was a concerted effort to build it up to a frenzy, the word hate was in all the papers as well as being mentioned on a regular basis on Radio and TV.
Now I think it is time for Wigan to say that in hindsight the Video was out of place and the word hate has no place in the game, fans will always say that they hate other clubs, but in my eyes that it is not something Clubs should be saying.

That's probably about right. The RFL couldn't be seen to be too lenient, but their own lack of consistency probably mitigated against them making it an even longer ban.

Saints Chairman has said all the right things, now we need to let it rest.

So have saints waited until the RFL issue their punishment on Flower before they release a statement to say they will not persue it with GMP?

If so are Saints holding the RFL to ransom?

And would Saints have persued this through the courts had the ban been more lenient?

More so I'd feel for Flower sat at home wondering whether he'd be in court even jail, I wonder how his state of mind was before this? And with Saints dragging their feet with their stance what part they would have played had something drastic happened to Flower?

Excellent and very measured post!

Nope, I don't think Wigan need to say anything abut that video, because it had absolutely no bearing on anything that happened.

I've heard stuff like that said in changing rooms hundreds of times, and no doubt it will be repeated this weekend somewhere. If you can't take stuff like that, then RL is not the game for you.

I don't think that Saints ever intended to do anything other than release the statement that they released.

It was a good statement, made all the right noises, and the tone was perfect.

There was absolutely nothing for Saints to gain by pursuing other routes of censure for Flower, and to be fair to them, they didn't.

Well done St Helens.

I agree, but why wait so long?

Surely Ben Flowers head will still be up his Harris and this same quote said yesterday would have helped his state of mind.

I think the chairman probably wanted to say his piece regarding inconsistency, and that was better said after the decision was made on Flower's ban.

Ben Flower made a horrible mistake. One that will haunt him for the rest of his life. He cost his team dearly on the night and has been rightly criticised and pilloried from all quarters! His punishment is just and warranted! He must serve his sentence.
Ben Flower is also an exceptional prop forward and by all accounts a decent and genuine guy.
I look forward to seeing him back on the pitch next April having served his sentence and hopefully a better man for it
Judges jury's and executioners now need to stand down and leave the lad alone

Saints said all along it was a matter for the R.L and made it clear they had no wish for the police to be involved . The sentence is about right and its time to move on , but those refering to L.H offence and his one match after e.g.p have a word with yourselves it was nothing more than a push with the elbow and not a malicious attack . One other thing its time your coach started behaving in an appropriate manner and not acting like a big kid , it never hurts to sometimes give a bit of praise to opposition teams (and i don't mean thinly veiled or sarcastic praise) . Also if he is going to let cameras in to the dressing room , maybe a more professional and measured team talk would be better than the Sunday amateur one he came up with .

I really think you need to go and take another look, without your tinted specs on my friend.... It's not on the scale of Mr Flowers actions, but it's not nice, and a little more than a "Push with the elbow".....