[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:23 pm  

18 matches for 'former' wire aussie star

18 matches for 'former' wire aussie star

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:51 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote: 18 matches for 'former' wire aussie star LOL if Serious About RL actually researched their stories they would know it’s a different Tyrone Roberts.

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote: 18 matches for 'former' wire aussie star LOL if Serious About RL actually researched their stories they would know it’s a different Tyrone Roberts.

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:03 pm  

lister wrote:

LOL if Serious About RL actually researched their stories they would know it’s a different Tyrone Roberts.

Maybe they would change their name to "Sloppy Careless Reporting About RL"

Bunch of clowns

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:03 pm  

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... %7C-june-6

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... %7C-june-6

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:10 pm  

Hate to bring it back to the Knowles incident, but 12 matches for words and nothing for a deliberate attempt to injure a fellow professional is a joke. I know the whole "inclusivity" thing is in vogue nowadays but this is silly. However, he should have learnt his lesson but decided not to

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:15 pm  

Inclusivity is in vogue?


Did you really just write that?

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:17 pm  

I was trying to write a response and gave up.

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:32 pm  

Just read that tribunal thing, and to put the top hat on it, Walmsley was found not guilty of a high tackle, so the mouth breathers in WA9 will be in ecstasy

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:03 am  

Saints must have had compelling evidence. Had they have lost the appeal and it be deemed frivolous, they would have lost Walmsley for the Wigan fixture. I don't think they would have risked that for a £250 fine. If it was for the incident I think it was, it was a head clash, commented on at the time by the clowns, sorry commentary team, on Sky. It seems at the moment the review panel are leaving themselves open to appeals. The McDonnell ban and appeal shows that they just took the word of the touch judges decision on the field as gospel, It would appear as a result of Leeds appeal, that despite all the video angles, they couldn't find the evidence of that. I presume the touch judge must have back tracked as they allowed the appeal. How many times has this happened and a club hasn't appealed for fear of the appeal being deemed frivolous and losing a player for an extra game with an important fixture at stake.

Re: This week’s disciplinary : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:38 am  

100% Wire wrote:

Hate to bring it back to the Knowles incident, but 12 matches for words and nothing for a deliberate attempt to injure a fellow professional is a joke. I know the whole "inclusivity" thing is in vogue nowadays but this is silly. However, he should have learnt his lesson but decided not to

First of all it wasn't a deliberate attempt to injure someone,how many tackles have we seen since then that are exactly the same but the player has had a lesser ban ? As for the 12 games,IF it's true what he said and who it was said about then he's an idiot and deserves what he gets. There is winding players up and it happens in every game,then there is crossing a line and it seems he has crossed that line again.