No 'blind' lyric in the song..

But he did give great ass

And boy could he play guitar..

Keep reasearching in your tower Gandalf

We get it, Wakey fans are still sulking because Scott Moore got a ban for gouging and if they can claim Ablett did one and then when he's not charged it lets Wakey fans indulge in their favourite hobby/theory of whinging about how they are treated harsher than any other club just because they're Wakefield. Get over it.

Jesus someone got on the wrong side of the bed. It wasn't a gouge but it's hard to argue that it was unnecessary and risky contact with the eyes. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, I wasn't saying give him a 10 match ban. Are you related to Ablett or something because it seems like a sore issue?

Can someone be ex-sent off?

No just bored of hearing about it from what is mostly Wakey fans who don't give a damn about Greenwood's eyes, they're still just upset about how their player got a ban and are the ones with a sore issue.

This man can...

You should write to the RFL and tell them to overlook your players' transgressions on the grounds of them being "brainfarts". I mean what's an attempted gouge or a fractured eye socket eh? Maybe ask them to only punish Wigan fouls!

Btw it was a Wigan fan that brought it up. You clearly have a sore issue if you're this upset about it.

Nope just pointing out your boring and transparent reasoning.....whereas you piped up saying Ablett getting no charge is an embarrassment for the sport, so I think we can see who is the one who is upset.

Its very hard to argue with someone who has their head so far up their own arris. I merely pointed out what Ablett was nowher as bad as a proper gouge but it was still unneceseray and potentially dangerous. Carry on whinging Printer, a brick wall would be better to debate with.

As well as

Willzay wrote:
No charge for Ablett either. How can this sport get any more embarrassing.

Legend as he was sticking two up at the dumbo Yarwkshire hillbillys booing him when he played for England at dumpingly, nice CC win as well..

Great banter! You can tell school has broken up can't you?

Ooh get the Stepford Wives.

Like watching an argument between my 6 year old and her friends. Still, funny if you're the one doing the winding up





couldn't find a picture of him looking more smug/shifty

I may be shot down here but if a team can get away with tackles like that and thug tactics and it works, why wouldn't they continue to do so? I hate those tactics and they need stamping out but you can't blame them for using them if they aren't being punished. The people who need to receive the flack are the RFL. They almost seem like they don't want to upset the big clubs because having them onside preserves the status quo. In short, nothing will change unless the big clubs want it.

Not at all. The RFL should rightly receive criticism for encouraging these tackles and techniques but the players and coaches are ultimately to blame for deliberately trying to seriously injure another player. It's not playing tough. It's not being ruthless. It's just being scum who have no place in our sport.

Indeed, by not banning players for certain tackles and indiscretions, The RFL are actually condoning them.
Also, the appeal system is completely flawed as it seems to allow an appeal without consequence and on this basis, every club should appeal every decision as there seems to be very little reason for not appealing.
Surely, there should be the chance on appeal that a ban could be increased ?

I would change the appeal process so that if you fail your appeal you add a game on to the ban. It would mean clubs would only appeal if they absolutely knew their player was being dealt with harshly.

I think the disciplinary needs a complete overhaul its too much in favour of the offender instead of the victim, it needs to be set up as a proper deterrent to reduce foul play. The system is too variable should be more simple and direct.
They should look at the offence and not the history of the offender, a bad head tackle is the same whether he has played the game for 15 days or 15 years. I would also remove the EGP.

Direct contact with head should start at 6 matches.
Direct eye gouging should start at 10 matches.
Cannonball and Chicken Wing Tackles start at 12 matches.
Contact with Ref start at 15 matches.

Then we can start an appeal process based on "innocence evidence without doubt".

It needs to be a good enough deterrent for the clubs, coaches and players to realise that the game needs to be more disciplined to protect the players welfare. I seem to remember we had a fair play index quite a few years back, this should be re-introduced to monitor which clubs are in compliance. As an example if a club has 4 eye gouging incidents one season then chairman, coach and player should be brought into the discipline advisory.

I would also remove the guilty plea however I wouldn't ignore past behavior, it's just flip it. Add games on for previous. As you say, the offense is bad whether 15 days or 15 years, but the punishment can't be the same if it's the first offense or the 10th so rather than reduce the games, tack it on for each time you're done for it.

Direct contact with the head starting at 6 matches is a tad over the top since "contact with the head" ranges from barely any contact to knocking someone out cold. Using my team - for all the noise at the ground on Friday, that Sam Tomkins high tackle was very light contact and something you see all the time and certainly not worthy of anything but an on field penalty. Sean O'Loughlin's "tackle" however and 6 games seems to be fair.

The other two, gouging and cannonball/chicken wing are fair enough but there needs to be clear ruling on what is a cannonball tackle, dangerous contact and what simply a 3rd man in.

You mention player welfare yet contact with the ref carries a 2.5x higher minimum sentence than direct contact with the head. Contact with the referee against can range. Josh Chanrley tapping the ref on the arm is worth missing half the season? For contact that isn't aggressive I think 2 matches is fair and then increase for the type of contact - as long as it's intentional. Player welfare is obviously important and that needs to be reflected in the disciplinary. Whilst contact with the ref is serious, it's not causing any harm to anyone involved.

I'm not having it both ways. Flower's incident is nothing to do with Wigan's third man tackling technique.

You're still completely missing the point!

If we use the head tackle as an example, the start point at a 6 match ban is the deterrent to make players stay away from the head, the club would use the new appeal process to reduce the ban based on circumstance. At the moment on average its a 3 match ban, quite often an EGP is used then an appeal ending up with a 1 match ban whilst the victim has the risk of concussion causing problems later in his career.
If a club wants to "play hard" and gets it wrong, then there is a "hard penalty" to pay. At the moment foul play is very much accepted and the punishment is weak, a strong enough deterrent will make the coach/player think its too much to risk.

Wigan's Embarrassing Viewpoint Quote to the Disciplinary.

Player accompanied by Assistant Coach John Winder. Pleads not guilty to punching with a clenched fist. Concedes there was striking with =#FF0000an open hand to opponents face as a result of provocation. There had been other incidents in the same game between both players that had been dealt with. Matters appeared to have calmed down to some form of normality. The opponent then in an aggressive manner approaches the player and touches his face in a provocative manner. The player reacts by =#FF0000pushing his open hand towards the opponent and there is minimal contact with the opponents face. This is not a violent strike and the effect is not substantial.

We know it was a soft punch, but claiming an open hand push..........is taking the mick.