: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:27 pm  

Rictoria Catpiss wrote:

yes, perfectly well reasoned and described there.



I say it again, anyone who thinks saints fans are big headed know it alls, we're all wrong.

I was speaking to a Saints fan the other day. He told me that the Christian Gilbart was a talentless no nothing who wasn't good enough to play music at children's parties. I disagreed strongly and said that this was complete rubbish but he was adam(ant).

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:51 pm  

Tbh I get fed up with the lack of consistency when issuing match bans. I think Westwood deserved punishment for sure but 5 matches was way too excessive. In the context of the Catalan game particularly. There was a period of 20 minutes that I felt the referee lost control of the game after a collection of dangerous and spoiling play (mainly by the Catalans but as Westwood proved we were not without guilt).

Although Westwood should not have done that high tackle I find it hard to swallow that he gets 5 matches and last year Mathers got nowhere near that for that dreadful tackle on King. Please don't try and tell me that tackle was not 'intentional' as I don't believe it.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:42 am  

Quacoe wrote:

You'll never get consistency simply because no two incidents are identical. Westwoods looked deliberate and malicious, and you don't honestly see that very often

It may have looked deliberate but i quote "looked" unless westwood pleaded guilty to it being deliberate, then in my eyes they should provide evidence sufficient enough to prove otherwise. But im not posting again on here cause your all trumped up little trumps, whom the players laugh at when they read your posts.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:54 am  

newky wrote:

It may have looked deliberate but i quote "looked" unless westwood pleaded guilty to it being deliberate, then in my eyes they should provide evidence sufficient enough to prove otherwise. But im not posting again on here cause your all trumped up little trumps, whom the players laugh at when they read your posts.

I understand the offence was the 15.1b offence of "When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent" the Grade D indicates it was "by Intentional – stiff arm tackle – no attempt to tackle legitimately – violent".

Ben pleaded guilty to this (deliberate = intentional), and the club have decided not to appeal. Justice has been served.

I'm glad the players laugh at us, I won't feel as bad now returning the compliment.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:03 am  

Wires71 wrote:

I understand the offence was the 15.1b offence of "When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent" the Grade D indicates it was "by Intentional – stiff arm tackle – no attempt to tackle legitimately – violent".

Ben pleaded guilty to this (deliberate = intentional), and the club have decided not to appeal. Justice has been served.

I'm glad the players laugh at us, I won't feel as bad now returning the compliment.

I wish I could muster up the energy/enthusiasm to laugh at them. The shake of a head and the odd look up to the sky is the best I can do at the moment.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:04 am  

Wires71 wrote:

I understand the offence was the 15.1b offence of "When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent" the Grade D indicates it was "by Intentional – stiff arm tackle – no attempt to tackle legitimately – violent".

Ben pleaded guilty to this (deliberate = intentional), and the club have decided not to appeal. Justice has been served.

I'm glad the players laugh at us, I won't feel as bad now returning the compliment.

This is another part that interests me. Surely, from the clubs point of view they should have gone in and pleaded not guilty to this charge and admitted guilt to the lesser charge, ie, the one that Fakir was given, a Grade C offence.

Surely he hasn't gone in, with representatives, and pleaded guilty to intentionally smacking the bloke in the face. If that's the case, then questions need to be asked about the players representatives.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:11 am  

keithcun wrote:

This is another part that interests me. Surely, from the clubs point of view they should have gone in and pleaded not guilty to this charge and admitted guilt to the lesser charge, ie, the one that Fakir was given, a Grade C offence.

Surely he hasn't gone in, with representatives, and pleaded guilty to intentionally smacking the bloke in the face. If that's the case, then questions need to be asked about the players representatives.

Their strategy might have been to mitigate sentence by admitting the offence.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:14 am  

keithcun wrote:

This is another part that interests me. Surely, from the clubs point of view they should have gone in and pleaded not guilty to this charge and admitted guilt to the lesser charge, ie, the one that Fakir was given, a Grade C offence.

Surely he hasn't gone in, with representatives, and pleaded guilty to intentionally smacking the bloke in the face. If that's the case, then questions need to be asked about the players representatives.

Well if he went in with Lowes, Lowes was probably leaning back on the two legs of his chair with feet on the table explaining how it's not about him and it's easy at the top.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:16 am  

newky wrote:

It may have looked deliberate but i quote "looked" unless westwood pleaded guilty to it being deliberate, then in my eyes they should provide evidence sufficient enough to prove otherwise. But im not posting again on here cause your all trumped up little trumps, whom the players laugh at when they read your posts.

Players don't take any notice of these boards..

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:16 am  

Wires71 wrote:

Their strategy might have been to mitigate sentence by admitting the offence.

But surely intent is very hard to prove and I see that's the only difference between the Grade C and D.