: Wed May 27, 2009 4:29 pm  

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:29 pm  

YICKER wrote:

one match ban for raising the knee but found not guilty for abusive language - cant they lip read

Yea they can, but Fielden claimed it was aimed at an opponent and not the ref.
A blaitant lie but hard to prove I would have thought.

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:30 pm  

YICKER wrote:

one match ban for raising the knee but found not guilty for abusive language - cant they lip read

A ban for him raising the knee has been coming for a while on the back of a couple of warnings.

As much as he's not been at his best whilst at Wigan and he did get man handled on Friday he'll still be quite a big loss.

Fieldens 'decent' form is better then most props 'good' form.

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:36 pm  

It's probably not much use trying to reason - but as has been pointed out Carvell didn't move off the mark because he wasn't even stood up. Fielden held him done for a long period which was almost enough for a penalty in itself, and then kneeled right in front of him. In my opinion the penalty was harsh but given Fielden made no effort to get out of the way, and was not being held back by Carvell, it's hard to argue against it. Every week in Super League penalties are given where players do not make an effort to clear the play the ball, and acting like a petulent child afterwards doesn't make it a wrong decision.
The lack of a charge for foul language is a strange one.

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:39 pm  

Club might be appealing the ban yet.

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:40 pm  

It's like the old song. If the right one don't get you then the left one will.
He was going to get done for one of the offences.

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:40 pm  

Don Brennan wrote:

Yea they can, but Fielden claimed it was aimed at an opponent and not the ref.
A blaitant lie but hard to prove I would have thought.

Except why would you possibly call an opponent bent? There's only one person on the field you'd aim that at (assuming the "cheating" meaning as opposed to another).

RFL once again showing themselves to be a joke.

: Wed May 27, 2009 5:28 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

Except why would you possibly call an opponent bent? There's only one person on the field you'd aim that at (assuming the "cheating" meaning as opposed to another).

RFL once again showing themselves to be a joke.

But then, why would you care with a name like that ????

: Wed May 27, 2009 5:32 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

get O'Carroll in there!

On crutches

: Wed May 27, 2009 6:35 pm  

a bigger punishment would be making him play the rest of the season without having a game off.

suspending him for one game punishes Salford