Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:09 am  

newgroundb4cas wrote:

How the hell wasn't he either sent off or sin binned last night. Then you guys had the audacity to chant the refs a w*nker 5mins after the incident. emmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm very lucky.

Cass are ace.

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:10 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Don't complain about bad decisions because at some point your team will have gained from one, don't complain about foul play because at some point your team will have committed a foul. So what you're suggesting is nobody should ever discuss super league? I've got a better idea, we all post what we want and whoever disagrees can post their disagreement. That ok by you boss?

If you disagree with anything I wrote about the Wellens incident or the RFL's stance on retaliation feel free to point out my inaccuracies.

We disagree with everything your write and will continue to do so, its our rights as human beings to do so

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:54 am  

Supreme Sydney2002 wrote:

We disagree with everything your write and will continue to do so, its our rights as human beings to do so

Hey, it wasn't me trying to tell other people what they shouldn't post, in fact I'm inviting you to do disagree with me, but lol at the total inability to defend your point of view. I've got one guy telling me I shouldn't post stuff, presumably because he doesn't agree with it, and now you respond to my invitation to point out any inaccuracies with "We disagree with everything your write."

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:02 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Except that's not how the RFL is (supposed) to view it. In the words of the Disciplinary Committee, when discussing retaliation in an incident in another match on that day: "In a word we view it seriously because if it were otherwise everyone would retaliate and there would be anarchy."

Those comments were made by the committee to Radford who would have been given a 1 match suspension had he not already served a de facto 1 match suspension due to the early time of his sending off. So we have to treat retaliation seriously, right? Except when Wellens "reacts to provocation from opponent" by elbowing and punching him in the face: no sin bin, no sending off, no charge.

Seem to remember Tomkins forearm smashing down on the back of Richie Mylers head after he had scored a try at your place.
Can you remember the punishment he got.
Did you post about It afterwards?

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:15 pm  

Don Brennan wrote:

Seem to remember Tomkins forearm smashing down on the back of Richie Mylers head after he had scored a try at your place.
Can you remember the punishment he got.
Did you post about It afterwards?

He was charged, found guilty and fined. Was it a different incident you were referring to or shall I consider that a failed attempt at point-scoring to try and deflect the issue from Wellens?

So, the question remains why wasn't Wellens even charged when, in the boards words, he "reacted to provocation from an opponent" and on the same day as they chose not to charge him they'd said they must treat retaliation very seriously so as to prevent everyone retaliating and taking the law into their own hands?

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:03 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

He was charged, found guilty and fined. Was it a different incident you were referring to or shall I consider that a failed attempt at point-scoring to try and deflect the issue from Wellens?

So, the question remains why wasn't Wellens even charged when, in the boards words, he "reacted to provocation from an opponent" and on the same day as they chose not to charge him they'd said they must treat retaliation very seriously so as to prevent everyone retaliating and taking the law into their own hands?

Did you comment on It.
Either before the punishment or after?

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:19 pm  

Wellens wasn't charged because it obviously was found serious enough, comprende troll?

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:16 pm  

Don Brennan wrote:

Did you comment on It.
Either before the punishment or after?

No I don't think I did, though if I criticised the punishment you'd be right to call me a hypocrite wouldn't you, considering I think Wellens should have been charged. If you're point of view is that Wellens was right to not be charged, would you also extend that to say Tomkins shouldn't have? Or is this Tomkins thing a red herring?

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:18 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

No I don't think I did, though if I criticised the punishment you'd be right to call me a hypocrite wouldn't you, considering I think Wellens should have been charged.

Wellens was never going to be charged. The guy was clearly provoked and he has never been charged with anything so far as I can remember. Wello may whinge too much for my liking (and he does), but he must be one of the cleanest players if not the cleanest in rugby league. I can't remember the last time he was even found guilty of a high tackle.

Re: Wellens : Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:29 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Wellens wasn't charged because it obviously was found serious enough, comprende troll?

Seriously? Is criticism of one of your players that difficult to discuss that you roll out a ridiculous insult in order to stifle it? How sad that you'd call someone a troll for posting views you disagree with.

Back to the point, Wellens was penalised so at the very least it should have been charged, guilty, penalty sufficient. You see since he was penalised and the board did accept that he retaliated and used his elbow it's already been accepted that he did make a transgression which the board said (on the same day) that they treat very seriously.