You should be able to guess who it was then from looking on there then! Stuart Fielden and Danny Sculthorpe...was tweeted by someone earlier...

Strange decision- 3 games would have been fair.

That will probably be the outcome after we appeal the 1 game ban

Ha, Ha, Very Good.








I wouldn't call O'Loughlin malicious player, his record speaks for itself.

O.K, to quite a few non-Wigan fans, he's niggly in the ruck, but seems to be allowed that extra second - he's got it off to a fine art.

Personally I don't really care how many matches he got, it wont help my team now, it did on the night, but they weren't good enough to beat twelve men.

I thought he'd get two, due to his record & actually getting sent off, like a real sending off.

But when I watch it, it doesn't seem to be the tackle of a tired prop & I just hope it was a one-off in the twilight of his career.

Or at least consistent.

It's a total joke.

I game ban for that?

If I was wigan i'd be kicking off. Clear Leeds Bias, didn't have a case to answer yet now he's going to have a 1 game ban and miss a potentially important game at that. It's the classic david v goliath clash. A weak malnurished david representing bottom of the table relegation stragglers leeds and goliath representing treble hunting wigan.

The whole system really is a shambles. This is going to sound like an anti-Wigan rant but we've had two examples involving them recently which are both very bizarre. This isn't about Wigan, it's about the system as a whole.

Firstly Ben Flower pleads guilty to a Grade B charge which carries a ban of 1-2 games. He gets given a 1 game ban. He then has the audacity to appeal that ban and then despite him already pleating guilty to Grade B, it gets downgraded to Grade A and his ban overturned.

And now today, O'Loughlin pleads guilty to Grade C which should be 2-3 games but gets given a 1 game ban because of some pathetic nonsense about him getting sent off in the 1st half.

It's an absolute joke.

I'm more disappointed that it didn't make it on Barry and Terry's biggest hits. Maybe it wasn't that bad?

Ryan Atkins got a grade C charge downgraded to a one game ban earlier this season. Why've you not got a problem with that? Is your bias showing through a little?

Very predictable to attempt to turn this into a Saints/Wigan issue. It isn't. I chose two examples I knew of off the top of my head and were both recent.

It's only the same as Salford getting fined and a two point deduction for having an extra man on the pitch for a couple of minutes, when another team this season has an extra man on the pitch not once but twice in the same match, resulting in a mere fine. Reason " it didn't affect the result " .

What a joke it's just like saying you can drive through a red light as long as no one is crossing.

I'm not surprised fans of my club can't be Ar*ed anymore.

Well, quite. It's not necessary to believe in a systematic pro-Wigan bias to see that the whole thing is a complete shambles.

That both happened to involve Wigan players. Very strange.

Why is it strange? Do you think the RFL have a bias towards Wigan? Otherwise it's just coincidence isn't it?

It's strange, that given your posting history, you bring up two examples pertaining to your great rivals and no other examples including Sinfield last season that got exactly the same charge and punishment too.

Potentially, yes. Lockers was never going to get a 3 game ban taking him out of the semi final. The RFL need the bums on seats and larger TV audience for the final that Wigan provides.

You are looking for an argument and a bias where it simply doesn't exist.

I've chosen two recent examples of them swapping and changing the grades and I think that's a stupid system and a method that invites criticism.

After Saints I'm probably more aware of what goes on at Wigan than any other club as I'm married to a Wigan season ticket holder, I live very close to Wigan and work and socialise with Wigan fans. So it's not a huge stretch for me to use Wigan as an example, especially when both examples used are very recent and very pertinent to the point I was making.

If you want to continue to accuse me of bias or whatever else then crack on. However you're the one who has suggested he was never going to get a 3 match ban, not me. My issue is with the grade system, not the fact a Wigan player will be free to play in a semi final.

The disciplinary cases are all posted on the RFL website so people can at least read an overview of each case. The Flower example is bizarre and shows the weakness of the current process. He could have taken an early guilty plea and accepted the minimum recommended ban for the grade. He chose not to and at the hearing the panel agreed that the initial grading by the match review panel was incorrect (two different panels, I'm led to believe). That's a great start because it means players could be submitting EGP's for offences graded incorrectly. Wigan then put forward a defence, albeit quite simplistic and lacking detail and he received a ban. The club then appealed and actually put a bit more effort into it, were a bit more specific, and the ban was reduced.

It shows that the match review panel and the disciplinary committee can have a different view on how offences should be graded and that (perhaps stating the obvious) how well a player is represented can make a difference. Of course the latter means there's potential for inconsistency. Two identical incidents could receive different punishments based on how well their club argues their case. Again, some might say that's obvious but I'm guessing there are many who think that two identical incidents should receive the same punishment regardless, but that's not how it works with the current system.

Why is it ridiculous that the red card isn't taken into account? He got sent off about 20 minutes into the game IIRC, which means that Wigan played without him for 3/4s of a match. So if he got sent off on the 79th minute he misses 1 minute, and gets the same ban and serves nearly a game less because of the time he was sent off, so I think it's correct that that should be taken into account. His actions affected the game he played in directly - something I'd like to see more of personally. I don't know why it's weird that the punishment already given out is taken into account when making a final decision.

The bollox being talked here is almost total.

If you want to campaign against the recommended punishments then that is a different story. Th disciplinary panels have to use the recommended guidelines and work from there, end of.

In theis case the recommended is 2-3 games. No card in 15 years is as good as it gets so FFS if he can't get credit for that, then who can? And what is the point of keeping your nose clean if you get no credit when eventually you are up before the beaks?

What was the credit? Well, the recommended ban is 2-3 so normal cases COULD get a 2 match ban. He got, effectively, a 1 1/2 match ban (the stage of the game was rightly taken into account) and so that is the extent of the leniency. Half a match.

Hard to take any major issue with it unless you are incapable of looking at it dispassionately.

I personally don't like the bloke, though undoubtedly he has talent and leadership, as I've always had him down as a niggly high shot wind-up merchant, and so I was amazed to see his official record, but hey if that's what it is, then they have to go by that. They did. Deal with it and move on.

Why is a head shot of such severity not a grade D? look at how say the Ah Van dangerous tackle earned him 5 matches, the very words used by the RFL I thought it would be a grade D.
Being sent off should never have an impact on ban length IMHO (if of course subsequently found to be guilty of the offence)
The RFL banned shoulder charges to reduce head shots and still we end up with this and other attacks to the head including being punched. When it is at the extreme end of the scale then the severity should be far harsher otherwise where is the deterrent?

If you want to talk about the disciplinary process being a farce, Tony Suffolk from St Helens received a 5 game ban for an identical offence to one he committed last year which earned him a 10 game ban.

Very few offences are identical and directly comparable. I loathe Wigan as much as anyone but thank God the aardvark has posted because I was thinking exactly the same without putting it into words.

All this is par for the course paranoia/opposition fanwindupperry. There is a serious side though: as we've seen recently, spend enough time invalidly criticising a bureaucracy and eventually people do start to believe it is up to no good. The RFL disciplinary process is as good and as open as it gets. When it doesn't give the results some want I suspect the motives of those complaining need more careful assessment.

Saw the incident as bad if not worse than the one that got him 10! He just seemed to keep rolling waiting for the leg to break, awful to see

I fully agree. He should have got at least the same again, if not more.

I'm not surprised fans of your club can't be ar*ed anymore too. But that's got nothing to do with the RFL, it's to do with the owner of your club and his inability or unwillingness to run your club properly.