Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:21 pm  

Big Jim Slade wrote:

Bit reluctant to tackle the rest of it are we? How are those straws you're clutching? Making your hand sore?

Don't worry, he wouldnt dream of defending it, its just not as bad as it looks (slo-mo and tv magic made it look worse) he didnt really mean to do it (how could he know he was unconscious it all happened so fast) and it happens all the time (he surely isnt the first to punch a prone player, the fact he was unconscious is irrelevant because Flower didnt have time to check that before he cocked his arm back and swung unmolested at Hohaia's face)

But no-one is trying to defend it yeah, but Hohaia gave him a forearm smash worse than Lamb on Hanley just before it. No-one wants to mitigate it but you know props are going to swing after that and if Hohaia happens to be unconscious at them time, well thats not Flowers fault (even though he knocked him out)he didnt even know before he hit him again.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:23 pm  

RLBandit wrote:

Tackling the rest of it would simply turn into a listing of Wigan player's 'sins' versus all the other incidents perpetrated by other clubs' players. So arguing about individual incidents doesn't help determine whether or not the premise is correct - i.e. than Wigan are specifically coached to go out and injure. Hence, some statistics would be far more useful - and if they prove your point, then so be it, you may indeed have a point.

Nor would your statement. The proposition is one of intent not of success.

The only possible proof of intent would be, i don't know, a coach or manager saying that they wanted you to hurt people, perhaps an instruction to knock them out or be reckless in their play?

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:28 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Nor would your statement. The proposition is one of intent not of success.

The only possible proof of intent would be, i don't know, a coach or manager saying that they wanted you to hurt people, perhaps an instruction to knock them out or be reckless in their play?

If only we had video evidence showing such behaviour?

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:28 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Don't worry, he wouldnt dream of defending it, its just not as bad as it looks (slo-mo and tv magic made it look worse) he didnt really mean to do it (how could he know he was unconscious it all happened so fast) and it happens all the time (he surely isnt the first to punch a prone player, the fact he was unconscious is irrelevant because Flower didnt have time to check that before he cocked his arm back and swung unmolested at Hohaia's face)

But no-one is trying to defend it yeah, but Hohaia gave him a forearm smash worse than Lamb on Hanley just before it. No-one wants to mitigate it but you know props are going to swing after that and if Hohaia happens to be unconscious at them time, well thats not Flowers fault (even though he knocked him out)he didnt even know before he hit him again.

The only 'defence' I have ever mentioned is that I don't believe he knew the guy was unconscious. That is all. You've already said you think it makes no difference (recklessness being no defence). That's fine. I happen to think it makes a *bit* of a difference. Not in the rules, or in the law (although it might), but just in common morality - i.e. if he told me in the pub that "yes, I knew he was out cold but smacked him anyway" I'd be so disgusted that I'd want him to never play again, at the very least. Whereas if he said "I don't know what came over me, but I honestly didn't know he was out cold", I'd be saying something along the lines of "Jeez, you were out of control, you need to sort yourself out, take your punishment, apologize, and make sure it never happens again".

None of the minor incidents in the build up are particularly relevant (I suppose perhaps technically they're relevant in terms of explanation, but certainly not in terms of justification), and I've never claimed otherwise.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:33 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Nor would your statement. The proposition is one of intent not of success.

The only possible proof of intent would be, i don't know, a coach or manager saying that they wanted you to hurt people, perhaps an instruction to knock them out or be reckless in their play?

If the intent has been there for several seasons (as most Wigan haters claim), you'd expect some statistical evidence that it was having an effect. If it's not having an effect, then it doesn't even matter, it's just a team making fools of themselves by intended to injure and failing.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:38 pm  

RLBandit wrote:

If the intent has been there for several seasons (as most Wigan haters claim), you'd expect some statistical evidence that it was having an effect. If it's not having an effect, then it doesn't even matter, it's just a team making fools of themselves by intended to injure and failing.

I don't know if obtaining statistical evidence would be possible, but it wouldn't suprise if the stats did paint a picture, there was 3 ligament injuries alone in last years grand final involving wigan. The more you think about it the more pop into your head, that have occured, against wigan.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:43 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

I don't know if obtaining statistical evidence would be possible, but it wouldn't suprise if the stats did paint a picture, there was 3 ligament injuries alone in last years grand final involving wigan. The more you think about it the more pop into your head, that have occured, against wigan.

Like I said, you may be correct, and I mean it. But watching them week in week out I don't feel like I see opposition players hobbling off any more than Wigan players. Could be wrong, I hope some 'anorak' puts some injury stats together - the data's probably there somewhere, if someone can be bothered to research.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:46 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

I don't know if obtaining statistical evidence would be possible, but it wouldn't suprise if the stats did paint a picture, there was 3 ligament injuries alone in last years grand final involving wigan. The more you think about it the more pop into your head, that have occured, against wigan.

You're probably right, the only time players get injured is when they're playing against Wigan, and I can't remember a non-Wigan player committing any foul play. As for Saints, they definitely don't do things like putting pressure on joints and their disciplinary record is certainly not littered with it...

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:53 pm  

RLBandit wrote:

If the intent has been there for several seasons (as most Wigan haters claim), you'd expect some statistical evidence that it was having an effect. If it's not having an effect, then it doesn't even matter, it's just a team making fools of themselves by intended to injure and failing.

I have fully intended to sleep with Cameron Diaz for a couple of years now. There is no statistical evidence of it happening.

The proposition wasnt that Wigan DO injure more people, simply that they intended to.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:56 pm  

RLBandit wrote:

You know that thing you sometimes see on television where all the players look like they're moving really slowly?

You know that thing where people on the internet think they have a point to make?

He punched a man unconscious on the floor. What he knew about the degree of damage he'd already done is irrelevant, as it would be if he was stood in front of a judge after punching an unconscious prone man on the floor. Having put him on the floor he removed any notion of self defence when he continued to attack him. Twice.

Surprised to see anything but utter condemnation for his actions this deep into the thread.

I'd have no problem at all with it if he goes to jail - a less hyperbolic statement than saying it's okay because you've heard of ten year olds also being told to knock the opposition out.