Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:31 am  

P-J wrote:

Hock was given a lengthy ban a few seasons ago for grabbing the ref by his elbow (the ref had his back to him) to try and turn him towards him whilst trying to make a point.

And yet, other players have done the same and got, wait for it, nothing! I'm pretty sure that Briers and Sinfield have both done this.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:32 am  

Big Steve wrote:

I think the reason MM wasn't banned was because it was the other players momentum in the tackle that continued the leg lift and landing. MM started the tackle but when the players legs were being lifted higher, MM's feet were both off the ground - there's no way he could have continued to lift the player up as he would have defied the laws of physics.

He didn't lift the player above horizontal so there's no way he can be judged responsible for the tackle.

Then he should be banned for defying the laws of physics, a dangerous tackle and wearing a Wigan shirt.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:13 am  

i m sure in days gone by you could be banned for life for laying a finger on the ref, never mind pushing him.
isnt bailey serving a 3 game ban for pushing a ref??

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:48 pm  

I really don't know why we don't use the disciplinary system from the NRL.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:02 pm  

CORNISH wrote:

i m sure in days gone by you could be banned for life for laying a finger on the ref, never mind pushing him.
isnt bailey serving a 3 game ban for pushing a ref??

What about placing your finger on another players posterior as Wilkin did to Hock. Amazes me it got mentioned earlier and all ignored it. What ever Hock or any Wigan player did was nothing compared to that. If Hock deserved a ban for throwing the ball into the crowd then Wilkins deserves double. Was an obvious attempt to get a reaction out of him which was missed by ref and all others. When Hock gets to visit the committee re throwing the ball into the crowd i do hope he points out what Wilkin did. But from waht i gather its nothing new for a Saints player to do. Pryce for 1.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:14 pm  

tank123 wrote:

What about placing your finger on another players posterior as Wilkin did to Hock. Amazes me it got mentioned earlier and all ignored it.

We generally do ignore stuff that Wiganers make up.

And besides, Wilkin probably just mistook it for Hock's face.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:27 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

We generally do ignore stuff that Wiganers make up.

And besides, Wilkin probably just mistook it for Hock's face.

That was not made up but if you want to ignore it that's up to you.

I know Hock is not the best looking bloke in the World but he is not that ugly. Wait until Wilkin meets Phil Neville he is really going to be confused.

Re: More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee : Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:53 am  

tank123 wrote:

What about placing your finger on another players posterior as Wilkin did to Hock. Amazes me it got mentioned earlier and all ignored it. What ever Hock or any Wigan player did was nothing compared to that. If Hock deserved a ban for throwing the ball into the crowd then Wilkins deserves double. Was an obvious attempt to get a reaction out of him which was missed by ref and all others. When Hock gets to visit the committee re throwing the ball into the crowd i do hope he points out what Wilkin did. But from waht i gather its nothing new for a Saints player to do. Pryce for 1.

Maybe it was ignored because it has little to do with the topic "More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee" as opposed to incidents missed by the referee?