I can't work out if you are a parody or if you genuinely believe what you're posting.



As if Wigan fans have ever supported the salary cap - the howls of protest that were posted here and elsewhere back in 2002 when it was introduced were full testament to that and the decade of whinging about how unfair it is show that the preponderance of Wiganers still think it is their right to buy their way to the top.

Trying to dress your obsessions and paranoias about other clubs up as some sort of wider concern for the game will fool no-one. Well no-one other than perhaps yourself, giving you comfort that your delusions can be tied into some sort of greater good narrative. If, as I suspect, Shaun Wane is as wacko as you there could be some terribly misdirected and mis-spent emotion leading into Friday night's game.

[url=http://gifsoup.com/view/1199947/picard-s-double-facepalm.html[/url [url=http://gifsoup.com/GIFSoup[/url

Are you for real or a parody?



There are some real gems here.

The salary cap wasn't introduced in 2002, it was in place years before that.

Quite how Wigan fans expect to "buy our way to the top" is unclear - Ian Lenegan has indicated the club can only be run on a sustainable basis. I don't know a single Wigan fan that thinks IL would go on a buying frenzy if the SC was abolished. I don't know any RL fan that thinks IL could outbid Warrington's owner even if he wanted to...

In fact now that Wigan has sound management under IL we are well placed under the SC, because the Wigan area produces more players than any other. And yet Wigan fans still call for the reform of the SC... because it is in the best interests of the game as a whole!

I think the complaints you are referring to would have related to the introduction of the hard cap, and if so the people complaining were right about that. You may also be referring to other complaints which started to be made as the damaging side effects of the SC became apparent. As you've got the date wrong it is difficult to comment further.

When Mo Lindsay was head of the RFL he proposed the SC as a way of trying to prevent clubs going bust and into administration, liquidation etc. At the time some clubs were spending 90% of their income on players salaries which was obviously unsustainable. That was the reason for the SC being implemented.
That was the sole reason for its introduction and on that basis it is reasonable for anyone to suggest that it is self evident the salary cap has failed. All these years and seasons on, clubs are still going into administration. This year it was the Bulls, last year Wakefield and Crusaders. All those clubs were subject to the SC yet went bust! So how can it be judged a success?

All the other matters it is now being given credit for such as the "level playing field" (whatever one of those is) were add ons some years later.

We don't need salary cap restrictions on our sport we need growth strategy objectives which each club in SL should have to meet. The RL business needs to grow and clubs should be required to show their plans for growth of Rugby League in their area.

Look, we all know the salary cap exists to protect Wigan from themselves. You wouldn't give a lunatic a sharp knife to play with would you?

If Wigan hadn't needed to be saved by being bought for a fiver to enable Whelan to build the town's main sporting team a football stadium, the cap wouldn't be here now.

Ahh. So it's our fault. Nice development of the argument. Now you appear to be on the right side of the debate, agreeing that the SC is wrong but now you're blaming Wigan for the existence of the cap.

Good footwork. For once I'm impressed by a Saddo post - it's still wrong, but wrong in a clever and amusing way.

The Salary Cap would have probably worked if it had stayed at 50% of a clubs income and not changed to a fix amount. Had it stayed at 50% then clubs wouldn't be able to spend money they don't have which they appear to be doing now by spending £1.6m

Oh dear, such a deluded post. I wish you would read what you type before you click on the submit button.

The crazy thing about this 'concern for reffing bias against Catalans' is that there [uwasn't any bias against Catalans on Friday night[/u

Penalty Count: 15-7 in their favour

Errors against: one forward pass leading to a try, one offside not given (intedeterminate result), McGuire not sin binned

Errors for: Played-at ball by Dureau not given (catalans try resulted). Fakir not sent off for elbow to Delaneys face, multiple high tackles not given.

I'm quite prepared to say Thaler was god-awful (he was), but there was no distinct bias against one side or another. Leeds should have been a try down, so should Catalans. Leeds should have had a player in the bin, Catalans should have had a player off.

The only way the Wigan fans on this thread, and on previous threads, have dealt with the facts of the game. Nowhere, at any stage, have I seen a wigan fan who believes there was a horrible pro-leeds bias, address the above examples, except to put their fingers in their ears and shout ever louder about how 'mickey mac was unfairly done'.

If Wigan fans would like to address the PC in Catalans' favour, and the above examples, feel free. But if you can't, don't try.

Penalty count has nothing to do with it. It's missed penalties not given, and non-penaltys given as penaltys that count. Hypothetically, if the penalty count should really have been 30-5, does that not state that the penalty count, although lop-sided, was not indicative of the game? I'm not saying that 30-5 should have been the count, just using it as an example - that's what "hypothetically" means





Should have been sent off, not binned - that was the error. He wasn't even binned. As for the offside, it was on the goal line during a period of heavy pressure. If they'd scored, it could have changed the complexion, and maybe the outcome, of the game. Should have been a sin bin for Peacock for the offside as well, after about 4 or 5 persistent penalties in a row.



Except it wasn't an elbow, and it wasn't initial contact into the face. The disciplinary looked at it and deemed penalty sufficient. That says to me that the ref got it right on the night.

On the other hand, they've called McGuire up, with a charge carrying a penalty of 1-2 games, suggesting that the ref got it badly wrong on the night.

Does that address the issues well enough for you?

I look forward to the collective apoplexy, derision, insults etc, and demands for sendings off for the first Wigan player to commit a foul on Friday night from Wigan fans, im sure we will definitely see it. I’m sure we wont hear one Wigan fan say something along the lines of ‘its not wendyball’ when someone claims a Wigan player should have been sent off or sinbinned. Im sure we wont see any justification for a high shot on Burrow that he was falling, changing direction etc, Im sure the Wigan fans will be up and on top and cheering the referee clamping down on their slowing of the ptb, and lord help us from the sheer bile and fury which will be launched by Wigan fans against any Wigan player who dares disgrace their club, thier country, their family and the great game of rugby league buy obstructing at a kick,

lest some Wigan fans appear as massive hypocrites.

I doubt Wigan fans are any better or worse in that regard than any other team's supporters.

And Dureau should have been back to 6, so Catalans would never have been 6 down anyway, maybe 12 down as, by your own logic, Leeds were pressuring the Catalans line. You can't say 'it would have changed the complexion of the game' as if that means the result alters, and while ignoring other, similar events.



And that decision's a joke, Fakir clearly raises the elbow as he enters the tackle, he is looking at Delaney's face and he guides his elbow in. It was a disgusting piece of play, not an attempt to fend or make a tackle, but to prevent himself from being tackled by injuring the tackler. No binning, let alone a ban, an absolute disgrace.

I'd also add that it was Fakir that, 30 seconds later, dragged Burrow down by the throat when he was otherwise through & in for a try. So that might have 'changed the complexion of the game'.

If you want to be harsh on-field, you've got to be harsh everywhere. The end result is that Leeds & Catalans both have a try chalked off, and are both a man down with 20 minutes to go.

But Deano G has been telling us that Wigan fans are in a unique position as, being supporters of "the greatest club in the game we tend to be interested in the wider good of the game more than supporters of other clubs".

We all know it's true - they are widely respected for their magnanimity on those rare occasions when they are defeated. They follow the shining example set by their head coach, who is in all instances the epitome of dignity.

[urlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12211/8111748/[/url

[urlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-rhinos/mcguire-s-suspension-highlights-system-s-defects-says-hetherington-1-4961766[/url

Looks to me like the pressure's telling on the Whinos!

Don’t both of those arguments actually support the whinging and moaning about the referees and disciplinary committee we have had to put up with from Wigan fans for the last couple of weeks?

Only Wigan and their fans could bitch and whine for two weeks, find somebody that agrees with their complaints, then have a go at them for agreeing with them, they are like a schizophrenic teenage girl, Im half expecting that Wane’s interview at the end of the game on Friday to end with him screaming ‘ I hate you all, nobody understands me’ before running back to the changing rooms, slamming the door shut and cry into a pillow whilst listening to One direction and refusing to eat his tea.

Not sure what's funny, some very resonable points raised there.

I find the comment about Anderson ' dipping ' into the tackle an interesting one , quite how anbody is expected to legitimatley tackle Burrows when he trys to duck under every tackle attempted on him , unless you are already on your knees it is simply impossible to tackle the midget

I'll think you'll find that most Wigan fans think Leeds have been very favourably treated - (a) McGuire should have been sent off in the first place and (b) a one match ban looks lenient. And it wasn't just Wigan fans that were unhappy. I suggest you send an open letter to the Perpignan local newspaper outlining your views that complaints by Wigan fans about the refereeing of the game were wrong, I'm sure you would stir up a hornet's nest of angry responses from Catalans fans outraged at what went on... Trent Robinson has already made his views known....

Finally, I'm not sure that "schizophrenic teenage girl" reference is appropriate, but then sexual stereotypes and unnecessary references to the mentally ill aren't my bag.

.

do they really? seriously?

Wigan fans are funny with their paranoia (please note this isnt an attempt to make fun of the serious and important afflication that the paranoid can suffer from and the seemingly obvious link with being a Wigan fan, just before anyone pretends to be offended by the reference to mental illnesses like Paranoid personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia and dementia of which paranoia is a serious symptom)
Well that is lovely, Robinson was strangely quite on Fakir cracking Burrow with a swinging arm to the head, not to mention his strange avoidence of comment on Fakirs leading with the elbow a few minutes before. He also didnt mention Thaler giving the turnover when Les Catalans clearly and obviously played at the kick through a set before

Wigan fans have also be strangely quite in their condemnation of those offences in their altruistic and noble quest for refereeing 'consistency'.

You missed out ageist aswell in you’re rush to express your faux-offence. Why are we allowed to stereotype teenagers but not girls or schizophrenics? You should be equal when pretending to be outraged or you will look a little bit like a hypocrite.


However none of this actually addresses the point that you are criticising McDermott and Hetherington for making the same points as Wigan fans

Next time Fakir needs to kneel down first before attempting to connect below the ' dipping ' head of Burrow

Burrow is 5'5, he is small, but he isnt microscopic. Danny Mcguire is 5'10, yet no one would think of justifying a high tackle on Danny Mcguire on the basis of his height. If a player cannot adjust his tackle technique to take in to account a 5 inch height difference, then he isnt competent to play the game.

5'5 he may be when stood up , 4'5 when attempting to duck under every single tackle being made on him , sorry , but thats what he does , Now your nice Mr Mc Dermott suggested that is why McGuire clobbered Anderson . lets see him do the same when little Robbie cops one on friday

I am no fan of w1g4n either , in fact you deserve each other , you are after all the 2 most niggly , dirty , cheating teams in SL , both with moaning coaches and far too influential administrations

All the best

So that would be Mcguire then ? , maybe you should be telling Brian that ?

:pg5ne2n8I have never seen McDermott do the opposite, he is quite old school, and i dont think he would want anyone sent off. Burrow cops one of those most weeks, he took one in the same game, McDermott rarely mentions it so i doubt we will see him defend or attack any tackle on Burrow.

Regardless, that argument holds no truck with me, Burrow doesnt have open season on tackling players who are trying to use their physical advantage of size and strength around the head, i dont see why players should be able to tackle him around the head because of his physical advantage of size and speed, the contest between the big men and small men make our game, i see no reason to give an advantage to big men with poor tackle technique.
You're bitterness just feeds your complex, let it go and enjoy the game, it should be a good one.

Why, McDermott hasnt argued it was a legal tackle, simply that it wasnt worthy of a ban. Just like Fakir's