Fortunately your opinion counts for nothing as I'm sure I saw Keefs name on the teamsheet,albeit on the bench, last Friday. It's time you and Fishta moved on. The RFL have deliberated and adjudicated!

Being.

Can the RFL?



Well, that's not consistent with the Lee Smith decision.

Anyone got links to vids of either the old Tomkins kick-out or the one from Sunday?

PLEASE let these school holidays finish, reduce the amount of garbage we have to wade through to find the decent posters.

When you guys leave school and get jobs, maybe you'll understand that we can't sit at a computer all day posting abusive lies.

Is this a particular bug-bear of yours? Watch it though as Fishta is the self-appointed Chief of the grammar police - even though he himself occassionally screws up!

Has a wizzard has cast a spell on you on level 87 so you're locked out of your pc games for a bit?

Nice that that gives you time to spend a bit more time lamely trolling other boards rather than posting on the Wigan board - you know, Wigan: the team you purport to follow.

However, it might be an idea to use the time to change your avtar. Whilst it might be funny to adolescent nerds with an inferiority complex and a deep wonder of what it must be like to kiss a girl, it does make some of your accusations such as those above look more than a little ironic.

Hmm... I'm far from perfect, but at least I can spell people's usernames correctly.



It's Wizard, it should be PC, it should be avatar, and it should be iconic.

Nice to know I've got a fan so obsessed (s)he spends so much time reading my other posts.

The irony is not lost on me.

If you're not a child, stop acting like one. Simple, really.

If you're keen to throw insults at gamers, maybe you'd like to nip over to the gaming thread and post your abuse to everyone there instead of constantly dragging this thread off topic?

Just a suggestion, like.

The other 'gamers' might well be nerds but they don't spend their RLFANS life hypocritically drifting from one rival club's board to another to indulge in puerile sh[ii[/it stirring.

It takes only a few seconds to look at your posting history to see that you do however. Truly pathetic, and an embarrassment to a proud club like Wigan that you should seek to associate yourself with it (albeit without spending too much time reading or posting on their board or indeed watching their matches).

Your agenda on here is the same as on any other thread on Southstander; your favourite board on RLFANS (the Saints one); or any of the other club's boards you infest - simply to hypocritically sh[ii[/it stir so please spare me the lecture on staying on topic, your double standards are quite clear enough already.

You know, I think you actually believe that.

You like throwing that "hypocritically" word around a lot. It really is a shame you clearly don't know what it means.

Let me break it down for you. You say I am a hypocrite. To be a hypocrite I would need to have stated something to contradict my opinion that Senior should have faced a ban, for example, that another player who had done something similar SHOULDN'T have had a ban.

Point out where I do this and you may have a point. Fail to do so, AS YOU WILL because I haven't, and you are shown up to be the childish infantile abusive liar that you are.

To save you the time, don't bother, because it isn't there.

Whilst we're on about bans and punishment being applied fairly, you have several times defeated the naughty word filter to post inappropriate language. You have broken 4 other rules in the AUP. A sure sign of desperation, and you deserve a ban. It would be inconsistent not to warn or ban you for these actions.

What did I tell you about the Chief of the grammar police!







Well Fista (oops!) here's one you made earlier -:

"It does seem to me that Saints fans struggle to string together coherent discussions. Usually they resort to thread derailment (by, say, posting a picture that has no bearing on the thread), insults (which is the norm) or statements that make no sense (e.g. "you have an obbsession with cunningham, therefore your wrong"icon_wink.gif, most of which seem to come out with terrible spelling and grammar" .

KAPOW! Now do one - Sadsack!

Comedy gold!

You've made my day already.

If you had to trawl my posts for a grammatical error, and manage only to turn up a deliberate mistake in a quoted example, you must be so desperate!

Cheers for the laugh, though!

Fishy....fishy....fishy There's no chance of Ginger Bob being banned from this forum, he's a personal friend of Mcfield don't ya know?

10/10 for your very accurate appraisal, but I suspect it may well fall foul of the rarely administered AUP. In any case, we are a broad church here on Southstander, as such character defects are understood. We place our faith in the Care in the Community programs.



AS for Senior, I thought it was accidental but stupid, and the laws need to be rewritten to ban such acts in the future.

Thats why he got a ban last week isn't it ?

If you had written it like this:
Yes, you're thinking "Why am I typing this rediculous dribble when I could be entertaining the wife!", it might have worked. But you didn't



What a tool.

They are "banned". As was demonstrated by the penalty, the appearance before the disciplinary and the fine.

Agreed. it was a poor choice of words. What I was trying to convey was that such acts receive an automatic banning of "x "number of matches , not a simple fine and a telling off.

Honestly? I never noticed.

More power to your finger MacF

The problem with "automatic" penalties is that they do not take into account any of the circumstances - the referee on the spot has an opinion, the camera may show another view, the player will have a third - thats why we have a panel to review the info without pre-judging and then to administer a punishment (or not) depending on their abstract viewing several days later.

It works well.

Obviously not if you don't agree with their decision, but thats life, get on with it.

Maybe just maybe if the players cleared the ruck area or released the players legs as the tackles are completed, instead of hanging on or continuing the wrestle they would not be in a postion to be kicked out at?

Agreed, but WTF the review panel are looking at then I do not know.

I have to be honest and say that I saw McGoldricks last night, and I thought Senior's was much worse. To be fair to McGoldrick, tomkins had hold of his ankles and was standing up(not fully but in motion) still hold of them. I am not condoning kicking out in anyway, but in truth that should really have been a penalty to Castleford. Referees should be penalising anybody still holding someones ankles standing up, whilst the tackled player is on the floor.

McGoldricks case is slightly different to others though, as he does this very regularly even though he's not been pulled to the disciplinary before now.

Tacklers should be allowed an appropriate time to complete the tackle legitimately within the rules and interpretations. Attackers will almost always want to get a quicker play the ball then the law permits.

Players should resist the urge, as much as possible, to kick out when trying to regain their feet.

Incidents of this type are relatively rare in SL, lets try and keep it that way.

He's had two warning letters about the exact same offence. Third time's the charm.

Bit like Brent Webb and his clumsy "tackling technique".

Any chance this is viewable online? Could you PM me a link if you've got one? Much appreciated if you can!



Absolutely, which is why I say kicking out is unneccessary, NO MATTER WHO IT IS.



Unfortunately, I doubt the disciplinary will use that argument in any case, there's a lot of players who do things they shouldn't on a regular basis, but seemingly never pulled up for it.

I've heard of bad losers but still going on about it nearly two weeks later is laughable.

Do you think the offence should be upgraded to a standard one match ban?