Nice find TS! Is that Fishta's credibility I hear sinking?

Glug,[size=85glug[/size,[size=50glug[/size

You cant teach mince.

Quote ="Puig-Aubert"You're a one eyed hypocrite, simple as. Or, more accurately a very emotional one eyed hypocrite whose confused drivel on this subjects goes round in circles. 1) Take a look at your avtar. For a grown man to produce that is truly pitiful.'" Nice change of subject to try and score a point. Quote 2) You insist on claiming Senior's kick was deliberate, ignoring the findings of the disciplinary panel that found that it was not. Are you a mind reader perchance?'" No, I'm simply saying they're wrong. Whilst I agree the [icontact[/i was accidental, the kick wasn't and he shouldn't have done it. If it was accidental then was it a muscular spasm? Quote 3) You claim you conveniently missed the events when Wigan players were charged with the same offence (and in one case was found to have kicked out at the player deliberately - unlike Senior - and in the other the panel were unsure of intent). Funny that. Conveniently missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged: hypocrite and liar = zero credibility.'" I am NOT a liar, nor a hypocrite. As I said, if I could see Tomkins' incident and I feel it should have received a ban, I would say so. Not that it's any of your business, but I do have other commitments in my life, I can't spend every waking hour in front of a TV screen or attend every match, much as I would like to. So why is it so unbelievable that I haven't seen it? If you have a link to a video, then by all means post it and I'll give you my unbiased opinion. I suggest you stop being such an abusive liar yourself. Quote 4) Despite your laughable claim to have even missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged you describe Senior's 'offence' to be the worst of its kind. Your like 'Tommy' being called up as a key witness - the deaf and blind Fishta swears he saw and heard everything m'lud.'" You conveniently omit the words "one of". But don't let facts get in the way of an arguemnt, eh? Quote 5)You defend players like Terry Newton yet describe players like Cunningham, Diskin and Bailey as thugs. You sad, sad man Your jealousy of Leeds and saints is like a cancer eating away at your capacity for rational thought yet alone comment.'" Despite that not making sense, I managed to grasp your "point" there. Please point out where I've defended Newton? I don't believe I passed comment on his disciplinary record, except where I mentioned his ban for injuring Long. Quote 6) Senior was charged with an offence for which there is a range of punishments available. The actions of the panel are entirely consistent with their previous actions when 2 Wigan players were charged with the same offence - you know the offences you pretend you didn't know about '" Yes, that's it, copy pretty much exactly what I said, and try and use it to score another point on me? That makes sense that does. Quote Yet you make deluded claims about not being able to have a rational debate. How the chuff do you have a rational debate with a tired, emotional fruitcake?'" God knows I've tried. But you're clearly too tired and emotional. Incidentally... Why was Senior's kick out only graded as an A? www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?

Quote ="Puig-Aubert"You're a one eyed hypocrite, simple as. Or, more accurately a very emotional one eyed hypocrite whose confused drivel on this subjects goes round in circles. 1) Take a look at your avtar. For a grown man to produce that is truly pitiful.'" Nice change of subject to try and score a point. Quote 2) You insist on claiming Senior's kick was deliberate, ignoring the findings of the disciplinary panel that found that it was not. Are you a mind reader perchance?'" No, I'm simply saying they're wrong. Whilst I agree the [icontact[/i was accidental, the kick wasn't and he shouldn't have done it. If it was accidental then was it a muscular spasm? Quote 3) You claim you conveniently missed the events when Wigan players were charged with the same offence (and in one case was found to have kicked out at the player deliberately - unlike Senior - and in the other the panel were unsure of intent). Funny that. Conveniently missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged: hypocrite and liar = zero credibility.'" I am NOT a liar, nor a hypocrite. As I said, if I could see Tomkins' incident and I feel it should have received a ban, I would say so. Not that it's any of your business, but I do have other commitments in my life, I can't spend every waking hour in front of a TV screen or attend every match, much as I would like to. So why is it so unbelievable that I haven't seen it? If you have a link to a video, then by all means post it and I'll give you my unbiased opinion. I suggest you stop being such an abusive liar yourself. Quote 4) Despite your laughable claim to have even missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged you describe Senior's 'offence' to be the worst of its kind. Your like 'Tommy' being called up as a key witness - the deaf and blind Fishta swears he saw and heard everything m'lud.'" You conveniently omit the words "one of". But don't let facts get in the way of an arguemnt, eh? Quote 5)You defend players like Terry Newton yet describe players like Cunningham, Diskin and Bailey as thugs. You sad, sad man Your jealousy of Leeds and saints is like a cancer eating away at your capacity for rational thought yet alone comment.'" Despite that not making sense, I managed to grasp your "point" there. Please point out where I've defended Newton? I don't believe I passed comment on his disciplinary record, except where I mentioned his ban for injuring Long. Quote 6) Senior was charged with an offence for which there is a range of punishments available. The actions of the panel are entirely consistent with their previous actions when 2 Wigan players were charged with the same offence - you know the offences you pretend you didn't know about '" Yes, that's it, copy pretty much exactly what I said, and try and use it to score another point on me? That makes sense that does. Quote Yet you make deluded claims about not being able to have a rational debate. How the chuff do you have a rational debate with a tired, emotional fruitcake?'" God knows I've tried. But you're clearly too tired and emotional. Incidentally... Why was Senior's kick out only graded as an A? www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?

Quote ="Fishsta" www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?'" As the sanction range for a Grade C offence (re:Lee Smith on Phil Bailey) is stated as No Further Action to a 4 match ban, would it have made a difference to the likely outcome re Mathers, Tomkins S, Senior or McGoldrick? Based on that example (if correct) I would agree that the RFL's disciplinary grading system is far too vague to be of much use.

Quote ="Fishsta" www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698 ...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?'" As the sanction range for a Grade C offence (re:Lee Smith on Phil Bailey) is stated as No Further Action to a 4 match ban, would it have made a difference to the likely outcome re Mathers, Tomkins S, Senior or McGoldrick? Based on that example (if correct) I would agree that the RFL's disciplinary grading system is far too vague to be of much use.

I think classifying a kick out (to the face or not) as a grade C makes much more sense. You've still got the NFA option if it really was an unfortunate unavoidable incident (as unlikely as it sounds it is possible), 4 matches for the worst kind of kick out (but is that enough?) and stages inbetween for varying degrees of offence.

It'll be interesting to see how Ryan McGoldrick gets on. IMO it was nowhere near as bad as Seniors.
[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1985[/url

In what way will it be interesting?

Grade A offence + numerous precedents set should determine the easiest decision (and likely £300) the committee will make this season.

If McGoldrick (I've not seen the incident but are more than happy on this occasion to accept your view) receives a playing ban then that will raise even more issues with the committee.

They'll probably let him play an extra match.



No, evidently.

I'm pointing at you and laughing.

Actually, I might have been wrong about Fishta. I don't think he's a Pie at all, he's a Saints fan. Guaranteed.

Im glad you got your agreement in before I got moderated this time icon_razz.gif

Spot on mate


Seems neither of us can get a simple message across to some. I've given up trying

Thank God for that.

Senior was brought before the disciplinary and was found guilty of an accidental offence and fined accordingly. Sam Tomkins was found guilty of a similar offence which was ruled deliberate and got the same punishment, I think its Leeds fans who should feel wronged.

The hypocrisy of the Goons as shown on the thread making light of the Tomkins incident has been noted.

That's because you don't understand a word of what I've said. Putting aside the juvenile "quote someone and change their words" effort on your part (that 99% of the population of RLFans grew out of when they hit puberty), you still choose to completely ignore what I've written.

I've compared this incident to others that I've seen, not ones I haven't. Why? Because that's the sensible thing to do. Show me a video of Tomkins' kick-out and I'll tell you how that compares. I've read the six-page thread, but there's no video link in there. Until I see it, I can't comment on it.

I HAVE compared it to a similar incident... Lee Smith's effort on Phil Bailey, which the RFL rated:

"Law:15.1(a)/(i) Detail: Kicking out / strike to face. Grade:C"

Keith Senior kicked out resulting in a strike to the face. Grade? A. Now, you tell me how that is consistent with "previous incidents of a similar nature".

I didn't claim to mind-read players, either. That's two more abusive lies by you.



An insult of gargantuan proportions. And typically a sign that you know you've lost this particular argument.

Before you reply, remember this advice.

"It's better to stay silent and be thought of as an idiot... than to say something and remove all doubt".

Unless you have something interesting and vaguely mature to say, I'll leave it at that. I've had my share of fun shooting a whale in a barrel.

For the more rational Leeds fans... Good luck against the Stains in the Semi. However that's as far as my support will go; Warrington or Catalans to lift the cup! (Hopefully)

Psst...take a look at your avtar.

Psst...take a look at your petulant blubbing on this thread.

Psst...take a look at your RLFANS history...all of petulant blubbing about nasty opposition players not being banned for long enough, or how Wigan's players are being picked on....the injustice of it all.




You didn't see the Tomkins incident. You didn't hear about the Tomkins incident. You didn't see a 6 page thread on the subject. You didn't see the Mathers incident. You didn't see the televised game that the incident took place in.

Like the country's over burdoned sewerage system you're just full of sh[ii[/it.




Why do you say Senior's actions are deliberate when he says they were not and the RFL agree with him?

I assume its because you're a mind reader. Please explain how you can know they were deliberate when there's no evidence to back it up?



Initially I spotted that your favourite thread was one concerning video games so I just assumed you were a nerd without any friends.

But more than that I think you must also be a St Helens fan.

Why else would you have posted on the St Helens board more than any other board on RLFANS?

Surely a Wigan fan wouldn't have spent less than a third of his time on his own team's board?

That is unless you're just a sh[ii[/it stirring obsessive who spends his time online pampering to his inferiority complex (when compared to what he feels are successful glamour sides like Saints and Leeds, or indeed whoever was the latest to beat Wigan), posting drivel on other team's boards by making out that their success is all down to cheating, having "thug" players, having the RFL on their side, having referees cheat for them etc.

I mean, that doesn't sound like you does it?

KAPOW!!!

Having now seen the Ryan McGoldrick kick out at Sam Tomkins, if anything it's worse than the Keith Senior one on brother Joel. McGoldrick knew there was a Wigan player attached to his legs when he lashed out.

I don't visit the Castleford forum, ever, I imagine there will now be a similar debate taking place on there.

Puig-Aubert, I refer you to this. Your trolling is some of the worst ever seen.



Where does the kick-out make contact? I'll have a look at this later.

Shouldn't you be on the Saints board?

Or is it Cas that will be occupying your attentions this week?

I've only seen it once myself but from memory I'd say somewhere high on Tomkins torso around the chest/neck area.

I'd liken it more to the Smith incident where he was trying to get rid of the defender attached to his legs.

I don't think anyone has ever had their ar5e handed them so completely as Fishsta has on this thread.

Hmm. Graded as an A, but according to the RFL's sentencing guidelines, all "kicks" should be treated as C-F grades.

Their guideline list looks more realistic to me, they should stick to that more.

I'm all for a clampdown on foul play, if players know they'll face a ban they won't do silly things.

Eh? Where?

Try reading this thread again, you'll see how mistaken you really are.

Just retire gracefully and it will all be forgotten in a few weeks.