I think it's embarrassing for the sport, and society in general, that we consider name calling as more of a hanging offence than if you physically injure someone, potentially finishing their career.

There was a huge moan last year that the bans for players were excessive - they’ve rectified this and reduced the sanctions of each grading.
We need to wait for the minutes to be released, but he has now been twice found guilty of using language that has no place in society, never mind from somebody representing our town and our sport on a national stage. I expect a very good explanation as to why his bags haven’t already been packed, the silence from the club on this is deafening.

I would think the club have to follow a legal process here. The player may well wish to appeal, which may delay things if it is something we have to wait for before we are allowed to terminate any contract due to behaviour. (If that is indeed on the cards).

I'm sure there will be various meetings at the club today and a statement will come.

its called due process, they had to go through the disciplinary procedure, to see what happens there, as he may have been denying it again. they can't just click their fingers and say begone, like in most walks of life. its not like in the movies.

If McGuire is or isn't guilty as charged & there is mischief coming from the opposition, i would think the whole episode has put a cloud over our team & its performances on the field. We have a situation where the players have loyalties to McGuire as a current team member & also to past teammates at Leigh ,some they have played alongside since childhood. Hopefully,a line can be drawn under the "incident" quickly & the Wire can concentrate on playing rugby again.

I don't think any Wire fan (or official) would defend him if irrefutable proof came to light that he said what is reported. We all agree it has no place iife, society or the sport.

What doesn't quite sit well with me is that he has been disciplined on, it would appear, subjective, unconfirmed allegations from an opposition player.

If such allegations were made against me, I'd expect to see tangible evidence and if none was forthcoming I'd expect the charges to be dismissed.

So, either the RFL aren't operating with total transparency, or they are desperate to be seen to be doing the right thing even if there is no evidence.

The solution is simple - release the details of the charge, supporting evidence and minutes.

Absolutely - but what we have at the moment is a heap of negative press stories and no response from the club.
If I were Wire I’d be putting out an interim statement.

They will be, as they do every week , it just hasn't been done yet

You can't control negative press, if we put a statement out at the moment, it'll just lead to more negative press, and complaints that it hasn't said anything.

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... uspension/

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... uspension/

This. For all we know he walked into that tribunal and just admitted he'd said it and just doesn't grasp the gravity of his words. Until we see the minutes we won't know how subjective his comments were, whether he meant what he said, or whether he's just a poop house who meant it and freely admitted it (probably because he wants to go home!).

Another antipodean signing that turned out to be a disaster, and we cannot say we weren't warned in this case.

I’m eagerly awaiting the disciplinary report to see what evidence was presented.

The first occasion the insult was heard by both the ref and the opposing player who both presented as very credible witnesses.
JM’s defence was much less credible.

What evidence is there for this second offence?

Unless there is something that comes out in the report. It's Charnley's word against Maguires word.

I thought the minutes were released the morning after, not sure why its taking so long.

There will have to be more to it. Although it's only a civil process, the evidence would have to show a 'more likely than not' outcome to warrant a ban. A scenario of one word against another (both uncorroborated) would not meet that threshold.

they're not that regular, its the rfl we're talking about,

not uncommon for them to take a day or two getting on there

Mo posted way back in this thread that the words were picked up by a pitch-side microphone. That would be pretty compelling. The minutes will have to be carefully edited to protect a minor.

There was pitch side microphones at a non televised rugby match. When did rhat become a thing because sky bbc and Channel 4 supply the microohon3s for TV purposes.

Every match has cameras and microphones there. How else do you think there are highlights of every game ?

Single camera set up on the gantry with the Microphone on that camera. Nothing like the production of a televised game.

He makes Greg Inglis seem like a good signing

It is very unsavoury that we are bickering over whether there are mics there or not. As it stands, he has been found guilty of using inappropriate language (twice). The system is what it is and he has to take his punishment, subject to appeal and the club - as his employer - will follow their due process. Such bans would not handed out on a whim.

Bottom line is without evidence ( and if there is,then he deserves whatever he gets ) it's one persons word against another and has been mentioned this opens up a whole new can of worms as it becomes open to abuse and becomes an issue for the whole game.

‘Your word against mine’ doesn’t wholly always apply.
If it did, then historical offences, the likes we’ve seen on Operation Yewtree could not be acted on.
many people with one word against another contribute to credible evidence.

The weight of circumstantial evidence adds to favourably to the defendant. So the fact that JMcG has already been proven guilty without doubt on the first offence, and also to have lied, goes against him on the second account.
Offence one can be used as part of the evidence on the second accusation as evidence greater than the ‘one word against another’.

The one word against another would have only worked in JMcG favour, on the first offence, had nobody else but JC heard it!


I’m no lawyer, but that is pretty much how it is. JMcG can appeal, but the likelihood without further evidence on his part, the penalty will be upheld.