Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:24 am  

I agree DSM. Unacceptable language should be punished but how it is considered worse than physical assaults (including those with attacks on genitalia) seems disproportionate. Having said all that, Maguire was given a chance and blew it. The fact that it involved the same player suggests stupidity of the highest order..at best.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:29 am  

OnTheBeach wrote:

It will be a disgrace if Warrington don’t announce his sacking today.

Either one or both of CEO Karl and Powell should go too for their incompetence in signing him in the first place and for the subsequent managing of him and others who have let the club and it’s fans down.

The club is a joke on and off the pitch.

I suspect the club will have to wait on the result of an appeal, if that's what Mcguire is planning on doing.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:46 am  

Captain Hook wrote:

I agree DSM. Unacceptable language should be punished but how it is considered worse than physical assaults (including those with attacks on genitalia) seems disproportionate. Having said all that, Maguire was given a chance and blew it. The fact that it involved the same player suggests stupidity of the highest order..at best.

I'm certainly not condoning McGuire's behaviour, but if I was a RL player now and someone got in my face on the pitch, as Charnley often does with opponents, then rather than bicker childishly with them, I'd simply give it 5 minutes and then kneecap him and hopefully finish his career - I'd only be looking at a 2 or 3 game ban max....

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:17 am  

wire2004 wrote:

What baffles me is that in both instances. Its all heresay.
The Pre season. It was aknowlaged that the referee "thinks" it was said. Thats in the case notes from last time.
This Time. We are solely relying on a player with a axe to gride against the club, (as was the case in the Pre season Game) Who was released because he did not agree with the tatics of the coach and the clubs philosophy going forward.

It would be interesting to see the minutes of the disciplinary hearing, to know the process by which this case was judged. If no officials heard anything (which is presumably the case, as no action was taken on the field), then were they going purely on the evidence of an opposition player or players? If so, that sets a precedent that could very easily be manipulated in future.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:36 am  

The hearing is chaired by a judge. They understand due process and all that.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:48 am  

Douglas Black wrote:

The hearing is chaired by a judge. They understand due process and all that.

I'm sure they do. My point is, does that 'due process' include relying on and accepting evidence that can't be viewed as impartial?

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:00 am  

For all we know one of our own players could’ve said they heard it, someone who knows josh personally and thought that isn’t right? that would surely be the tipping point in the evidence required to find him guilty?

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:06 am  

I think a system chaired by a judge has to be trusted.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:48 am  

Douglas Black wrote:

I think a system chaired by a judge has to be trusted.

Just being curious and playing devils advocate here,but did you say the same last year when Knowles won his appeal using the same process ?

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:54 am  

I didn't comment on it, but yes I would have.