Think that just shows how fans are starved of some forwards who can make some sort of dent. For me I'd prefer him to play for entertainment value if nothing else - gets very tedious when our front rowers are incessantly dominated on collision.

I’m sure Lam is now just a comedy sketch. His favourite stand in centre is banned, so he refuses to name a young lad like Halsall or Hanley and instead goes with a short squad. Looking at the squad Hardaker will have to go to centre, so it’ll be all change across multiple positions and it’ll be clunky again.

Let’s hope Powell is ok to be added and if so I’d go (from that squad although if I had my way Halsall and O’Neill would be in the 17)-

Field
Bibby Hardaker Gildart Marshall
Hastings Smith
Singleton Powell Bullock
Smithies Farrell Partington

Subs
Clark Havard Shorrocks Byrne

A rest for KPP finally and leave Bourouh out because what’s the point in him having a 2 minute cameo?! If he was going to get 20-30 mins than fair enough.

Nah, Faz will go to centre!

Hardaker
Field Bibby Gildart Marshall
Hastings Smith
Singleton Powell / shorocks Havard
KPP Farrell Partington

Subs
Smithies Shorrocks/ Borough Byrne Clarke

I think it depends who he speaks to in the Bowling Green as to who will play where

Are coaches not allowed a personal life now? There's plenty to criticise him for on the pitch without this rubbish.

So stating the name of a pub affects someone’s personal life does it?
I assume if I hadn’t named a pub then the post would have been fine with you would it?

It was an attempt at irony I.e. it depends on who he speaks to will determine what the next baffling team selection will be.

If that harms your feelings block me. I won’t sleep tonight though if you do but I’m sure time will be a great healer.

And there is his post match excuse

It doesn't harm my feelings at all, I just think it's sad that he can't have a drink in his local without someone finding out and putting it online to use as a stick to beat him with. I want him sacked too but couldn't care less whether he goes to the pub in his spare time. He's just a bloke like you and me and should be allowed some privacy.

I’ve got no problem whatsoever in him have a pint in whatever pub he chooses. I’m pretty sure he frequents more than one pub.

Believe it or not I actually feel sorry for him at times. He’s in a hard place and it’s not great being in a position like that however, when his decisions are consistently baffling and his statements are truly unbelievable he opens himself up to criticism.

Again, why are we giving game time to the guy we're getting rid of, rather than the guy we're keeping?

But yeah, as you say, no point in a brief cameo. If it's just a matter of giving Powell a short break, Shorrocks can cover it.

Still wouldn't be surprised to see Faz in the centres and Hardaker at full-back.

Bateman has won an appeal and is now playing.

It's almost like the ref made it up, but had no evidence...

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/35 ... C-tribunal

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/35 ... C-tribunal

He didn't make it up
He did say something, they accepted he didn't say it to the ref but another player.

So the ref made a mistake and we got a man in the bin for it?

Or the ref thought that he did say it to him, the RFL agrees (surprise surprise) and an independent tribunal called out the BS?

Yes

No

Yes & NO

I know your currently on a ref bashing exercise and i've made my opinion clear that I deffo don't agree with a lot orienteering done, but it's not a conspiracy

Possibly, but if it isn't a conspiracy - then it's incompetence isn't it?

Not necessarily asking you on this one, more just throwing it out there - why did it need to go appeal? It just smacks of the RFL backing refs to the hilt, regardless of who gets hit in the cross fire. JB misses a game, we don't get to see him play. All obviously not as important as making it seem like the ref didn't get it wrong.

FWIW, even if JB did say it to the ref. It's not worth 16k in the stands + how ever many others on TV, having to watch a diminished spectacle because of a few choice words.

Who on earth do you think "the RFL" are? It may suit your agenda to anonymise them but the match review panel aren't some faceless unknowns.

All the same and it doesn't really matter what they are called. It's a cartel where they all close ranks.

I think the problem is you don't know how the process works.

Quite possibly. I'm not doing a Ruddy Duck here and saying my way is the only way...

Feel free to talk me through it as the way this one looks to the 'uneducated', it doesn't paint the process in a good light. Two varying points of argument and the match review panel back their own man. An independent tribunal then review it and find JB not guilty.

One of the main points behind the charging process is for players to accept the grading and charge.
In this instance (and bear in mind its different than a tackle were they can see for themselves what happened ) they will have i assume listened to the refs mic etc and said 1 game which i wouldn't have argued with.
But if a player disputes and can provide evidence to the contrary then the disciplinary are free to review.
Obviously wigan/Bateman have provided evidence of some sort and the disciplinary have accepted that explanation

Edit
Bateman can't give his explanation before he's charged, so they haven't looked at both sides of the story and then believed the ref to then only change their minds.

Thanks & apologise if I'm being slow, but basically what you're saying is that it goes off what the ref says and the players don't get to put their side, or evidence across before an initial decision is made?

That seems like, at best, shaky ground and at worst a perfect opportunity to sweep things under the carpet, especially in situations like this. The mic picks up the wording, but there's no proof to say who it's aimed at, so they charge him based off the account of the ref.

Players are charged first.

The severity is then decided.

The player can then accept or challenge and it goes to "trial"

Exactly. There's no conspiracy whatsoever, unless you're a tinfoil hatter, but clubs remain able to challenge if they have other evidence or don't agree with the grading.