How do you explain the citation in the first place?

I find it hard to understand how one corner of the judiciary can decide a player has a case to answer, and the other corner - having viewed the same evidence - can decide he doesn't.

If nothing else it may have interfered slightly with Wigan's prep. Not saying that was the ploy, but if it was it will have worked.

I've not seen the incident but reading every person on here saying theres nothing in it makes you wonder why he had to turn up to be found not guilty. They must have given Hansen a couple of the worst days of his life waiting for the decision which makes it all the stranger.

They really need to find some consistency with these decisions. To call up Hansen but not Hock or Lynch is crazy by all accounts.

If Solomona's ban isn't overturned on appeal in the next few days, then I'll admit to minor paranoia - but after the bans handed out to Wigan players in the past year or so( Tuson, Coley, Lima etc) and the manner in which Morley, Carvell, Peacock and Bailey in particular have escaped punishment, it it any wonder that there is a certain amount of paranoia amongst Wigan fans?

How to "out-troll" the trolls!

I didn't get a reply to my question about how bad Solomona's tackle was. Late last night I thus went on the Warrington board where there is a post on Solomona's citing/ban. Several pages of the usual anti-Wigan vitriol - massive injustice about Solomona being banned etc etc. I thus repeated the above post - saying Hansen should never have been cited as it was an innocuous challenge and asking again about Solomona's tackle.

There then followed some intelligent posts from Wire fans - agreeing that Hansen was innocent. Someone had seen the tackle on some highlights. It then transpired that Solomona had in fact pleaded guilty to a reckless challenge and that Baile (the tackled player) was injured because of it. It is very unlikely he will appeal because he pleaded guilty - and this indeed may have helped him escape a lengthier ban!

I assume Solomona is out of the Wigan game then?

I'm sure I remember the outcry in Oz when Thurston had to trapes all the way down to Sydney to answer a trumped up charge before the last Origin game. The mighty Maroons argued that this did nothing more than distrupt the palyer and the coaching staff, when they should have been busy honing skills elsewhere.

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3129[/url

This was the Hansen case. He pleaded not guilty and was found not guilty.

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3146[/url

This was the Solomona case in which he pleaded guilty but not deliberate. The injury sustained was the major aggravating factor.

The main difference between the two incidents is that Solomona committed a crusher tackle whereas Hansen didn't.

And all the Wire fans' anger at the seeming injustice of it all was totally misplaced - as usual!

The majority of Leeds fans also think it's an injustice and the RfL are biased in Wigan's favour!

If a guy pleads guilty then it's pretty difficult to see how he can be let off.

The Warrington anger is indeed misplaced.

As for Leeds, if they're so angry because Harrison Hansen has been cleared to play against them, I think it says more about them than it does about anyone else. If it was Sam Tomkins or Pat Richards I could understand it.

Supporters of dirty Carvel and dirty Bailey are not in a position to throw the first stone

I wouldn't hold out much hope of an appeal if i were Wire fans either. As Solomona said he would respect the panel's decision.

Was it worthy of a ban?

LOL

Did these Leeds fans also notice that Sinfield and Kirke were also "let off" by the same panel for incidents in the game against Quins?

Very good. But still waiting for an answer to the question.

Try reading the disciplinary item it's all explained in there. I still wouldn't expect it to alter your delusional view of the world though, so perhaps don't bother.

Wow ... it's been a long time since someone's disagreed with you, hasn't it.

What was to stop them reaching the same conclusion before he was even charged? They had all the same evidence.

Besides Hansen and the coaching staff's testimony, yeah. In effect they sent the incident for review, reviewed it and found him not guilty. But no, it's a conspiracy against Wigan to knock us off our stride before the final.



Never mind Solomona getting banned from potentially Wire's biggest game of the season.

Nothing to do with him pleading guilty, and the player subsequently being injured from the incident?

They reviewed it, he pleaded guilty, was found guilty and got banned. Or perhaps it was a ploy to stop him from enjoying the final on TV.

I'm pretty sure that somewhere down the line someone said the recommended minimum punishment for this kind of offence is a single match ban. I didn't see the Solo incident, but if Solo pleaded guilty, which he supposedly did, there's not much else they could do.

I did see the Hansen incident. I also saw Wigan's explanation, which gave good insight into tackling technique etc, but even without that I thought the citation was frivolous. There was nothing intentional or even reckless in that tackle. They ought to have the expertise to recognise that without the accused player having to explain it to them.

They've got a duty of care to all players. They deemed an incident of potentially unnecessary pressure to the head or neck of an opponent worthy of investigation, investigated and found him not guilty. I believe that in this instance it was OTT but, i'm glad that the RFL are investigating potential attacks to the head or neck.

I understand that as a collective we as fans don't have much faith in the RFL but to read the disciplinary items and still come to the conclusion that the RFL are conspiring against us is laughable.

I think the conspiracy theorists exaggerate things greatly. But I still think the Hansen citation was pretty harsh given that the player and his team were preparing for the Challenge Cup final.

Anyway, that's my final thought on it. Certainly don't want to turn this into a prolonged slanging match.

Not expecting them to get far in the playoffs, then?