Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:50 am  

Gruntfuttock wrote:

Then i suggest you re-watch the game as McGoldrick clearly elbows Wellens in the face once or twice, THATS what got Wellens worked up, but as the RFL disciplinary committee found no case to answer , then they didnt see it a serious as the Radford incident,

I've just watched it frame by frame! His elbow doesn't come anywhere near his face. But even if it did, this isn't an argument about whether or not Wellens was provoked. If McGoldrick did hit Wellens with the elbow then all that means is the RFL should have charged them both. The RFL has shown that provocation, whilst being a mitigating factor, isn't an excuse and cannot be tolerated due to the negative message it sends. And as I said above, I don't get this attitude that "it wasn't as bad as Radford so therefore deserved no charge." It was retaliation nonetheless and it involved striking another player in the face with the elbow. That isn't so far removed from what Radford did (if at all) and was, imo, with far less provocation. If Radford was sent off and fined, Wellens shouldn't have been given a no charge. The RFL accepted that he retaliated so they had no justification for a no charge.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:53 am  

Is this hypocrite still waffling on.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:02 am  

Don Brennan wrote:

Is this hypocrite still waffling on.

You haven't made one meaningful reply Don. You're merely demonstrating your lack of ability to debate anything. Hypocrisy would mean I condone Tomkins and I don't, so what are you waffling on about?

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:37 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

You haven't made one meaningful reply Don. You're merely demonstrating your lack of ability to debate anything. Hypocrisy would mean I condone Tomkins and I don't, so what are you waffling on about?

well you would be a total hypocrite if like a number of your fellow goons you could see nothing wrong with the tomson boys antics! how ever in my opinion having watched wello since his 1st. game in a saints shirt I would have to say that if he reacted to an incident by retaliating my logic tells me he was provoked .

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:37 am  

The EGW does have an unhealthy obsession with wello's antics, i mean watching it frame by frame, get a life! however in the interests of fairness i should point out that he or she was very scathing of joel tompkins antics on the pie board, and suggested he should be banned

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:47 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

You haven't made one meaningful reply Don. You're merely demonstrating your lack of ability to debate anything. Hypocrisy would mean I condone Tomkins and I don't, so what are you waffling on about?

Your a hypocrite because you said nothing about Tomkins but havent shut up about Wellens.
If you'd have bleated on and on about Tomkins forearm smash then you'd have had a point.
I take It this Is Fishta's other persona?

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:49 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

The EGW does have an unhealthy obsession with wello's antics, i mean watching it frame by frame, get a life! however in the interests of fairness i should point out that he or she was very scathing of joel tompkins antics on the pie board, and suggested he should be banned

He had to do after everything he said on here.
In the past when Tomkins did Myler over the line he said nowt.
He doesn't fool me.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:05 pm  

handrags wrote:

well you would be a total hypocrite if like a number of your fellow goons you could see nothing wrong with the tomson boys antics!

But I do, so this insistence that I'm a hypocrit is nothing more than trying to have a go at someone because they're posting a particular opinion. Not only have I said that I wouldn't condone Tomkins' behaviour, I posted both here and on the Wigan board about his latest antics so the argument that I'm a hypocrit is going nowhere and doesn't in any way detract from my opnion on Wellens' actions.

how ever in my opinion having watched wello since his 1st. game in a saints shirt I would have to say that if he reacted to an incident by retaliating my logic tells me he was provoked .

He was, but then I've always accepted that but my argument is that retaliating to provocation is a punishable offence. Fair enough if the RFL didn't view retaliation as a punishable offence, but they do and said so on the very day they decided not to charge him, so in my opinion that's a little inconsistent with official policy and the response to other instances of retaliation.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:13 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

The EGW does have an unhealthy obsession with wello's antics, i mean watching it frame by frame, get a life!

To be fair, it was suggested that Wellens had took an elbow to the face and I didn't consider it beyond the realms of possibility that I was wrong about the events leading up to it so I watched it again. It would have been quite a mitigating factor, but I still maintain that even if he had been elbowed that would only mean they both should have been charged. To my mind Radford was provoked to a greater degree but still deserved to be charged for retaliating.

however in the interests of fairness i should point out that he or she was very scathing of joel tompkins antics on the pie board, and suggested he should be banned

You're too kind.

Re: Wellens : Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:19 pm  

Don Brennan wrote:

Your a hypocrite because you said nothing about Tomkins but havent shut up about Wellens.

I think you're stretching the definition of hypocrit there Don, and it seems rather desperate if you don't mind me saying. And quite obviously, I'd shut up about Wellens if nobody had responded to my comment with disagreement, but then that's how forums work and I think you know that. At least other posters are actually participating in a discussion... what are you doing?

If you'd have bleated on and on about Tomkins forearm smash then you'd have had a point.
I take It this Is Fishta's other persona?

I suppose you only ever comment on foul play that your team has never committed in their history, eh Don? Because if you didn't, well there's a word for that with which you're more than familiar. And your last comment is yet another in a long series which focus on attacking the arguer rather than the argument.