Could be a double bluff by Cull.
Plant loads of hard done too judiciaries on us, banking up a catalogue of heavy penalties, until wire really do need his compassion to get us off with one.

Or perhaps he’s just teaching us a hard lesson, so we finally get it that success stems from consistent good discipline.

What is there to address? Without knowing what was discussed during those appeals, it's difficult to confirm whether it was frivolous or not. Other clubs have also had two appeals rejected and not been judged frivolous, so it's not Saints getting preferential treatment. Warrington could still appeal this appeal and get the extra game taken off, if they can find a reason that isn't frivolous.

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/discipli ... cle-83477/

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/discipli ... cle-83477/

George Williams get an extra ban, meaning he MISSES England games....

meanwhile, wigan first team players are serving suspensions in reserve games they would never have been within 100 miles of hahaha.

To say the people running our game aren't fit for purpose, is overselling them.

Williams appealing again on Tuesday.

Williams using England games to serve his bans so he'll be available for Warrington! Disgraceful!*

Anyone would think only Wigan have used the reserves and friendlies route to serving bans. You've done it yourselves enough times.

I agree with the last part though. The RFL and it's associated committees are dab hands at shooting themselves in the foot.




*We can all play that game.

Not sure he was being critical of Wigan, more critical of the system...

Warrington have used the system at least twice this year, I didn't agree with it then and didn't agree with it now Wigan have used it.

Bans given in first team games should only be used against first team matches - internationals I'm a little less sure on I guess there would need to be consensus with the NRL / Aus / NZ in this regard and where Williams was a certain starter for England, how would a ban for Makinson sit? Probably in the England squad but not a guaranteed starter with Johnstone & Young around.

I understand that mate but it's funny that everyone is up in arms and using the Wigan example when they could just as easily use an example from their own club. The way it's panned out in the media you'd think it was Wigan taking an unfair advantage when every team uses the same "loophole".

I agree with what you're saying though. It does seem a convoluted way of doing things. However, there would be unfairness whichever way you did it. Hill, for example, has played in the reserves plenty this season and could quite easily have played in the final so serving his ban there was more than justified.

You'd also have instances where players were unable to play in the reserves to regain fitness if they still had outstanding bans in that competition. Effectively they'd be serving a double ban as they'd have to serve their reserves ban which would delay their return to the first team, even if they hadn't been banned in that comp.

There's all sorts of scenarios where it would still be an unfair way to do it. I've also seen a suggestion that the player serves their ban in the competition they received it in but how would that work for the Challenge Cup? Players could effectively be banned from the competition for years if they received a multiple game ban!

Ultimately it's a flawed system and I agree it probably needs refining. However, as all teams get the same dispensation I'm a bit unsure as to why the outcry is so great. Unless, as I said earlier, it's because Wigan used it. I don't know for sure, but it seems strange that no one complained when Warrington or Hull or Castleford etc used it earlier in the season.

well done on missing the point.

I’m happy that Wigan have the trio off the hook.

That way they’d be no excuses like there wasn’t for Saints.

Which was? The administrators of the game are incompetent and the best way to illustrate this is to use an example where Wigan got an advantage rather than one where Warrington did?

I think I got the point perfectly well mate.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... october-17

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... october-17

Shawn Wane should have asked saints to appeal the ban, Williams would be free to play then.

Paul Vaughan is an Australian international. Sorry if this has been suggested and I've missed it, but why can't he use the Kangaroos games that are taking place this Autumn to use up the rest of his ridiculous ban?

Are we represented by Lionel Hutz?

Williams dropped from the squad, with I guess means he'll now have to use two Warrington games to serve his ban.

I think that he'll still be able to use the internationals to complete his ban, even though he's no longer in the squad, based on the fact that he is a regular and would have been included were it not for the ban. This is what happened with Dudson last year even though he wasn't picked for the Wales squad.

If he isn't able to serve them for the England games, then it effectively becomes a 5-game ban

Good point

Interesting point, if it works one way, it should for another.

Because, A. He hasn't played internationally since 2019 and B. He plays over here and won't get picked.

I imagine we have the legal team of Lionel Hutz, The lawyer Bill Murray plays in Wild Things, Dustin Hoffmans lawyer in Sleepers and Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny.

Borrow Johnnie Cochran from Wigan?