Joined: Jul 17 2015 Posts: 4682 Location: Sitting on the naughty step
I agree DSM. Unacceptable language should be punished but how it is considered worse than physical assaults (including those with attacks on genitalia) seems disproportionate. Having said all that, Maguire was given a chance and blew it. The fact that it involved the same player suggests stupidity of the highest order..at best.
Just my opinions unless it's a FACT, in which case it's a fact.
OnTheBeach wrote:It will be a disgrace if Warrington don’t announce his sacking today.
Either one or both of CEO Karl and Powell should go too for their incompetence in signing him in the first place and for the subsequent managing of him and others who have let the club and it’s fans down.
The club is a joke on and off the pitch.
I suspect the club will have to wait on the result of an appeal, if that's what Mcguire is planning on doing.
Captain Hook wrote:I agree DSM. Unacceptable language should be punished but how it is considered worse than physical assaults (including those with attacks on genitalia) seems disproportionate. Having said all that, Maguire was given a chance and blew it. The fact that it involved the same player suggests stupidity of the highest order..at best.
I'm certainly not condoning McGuire's behaviour, but if I was a RL player now and someone got in my face on the pitch, as Charnley often does with opponents, then rather than bicker childishly with them, I'd simply give it 5 minutes and then kneecap him and hopefully finish his career - I'd only be looking at a 2 or 3 game ban max....
And so you aim towards the sky, And you'll rise high today, Fly away, Far away, Far from pain....
Joined: Sep 20 2005 Posts: 1097 Location: The Yard
wire2004 wrote:What baffles me is that in both instances. Its all heresay. The Pre season. It was aknowlaged that the referee "thinks" it was said. Thats in the case notes from last time. This Time. We are solely relying on a player with a axe to gride against the club, (as was the case in the Pre season Game) Who was released because he did not agree with the tatics of the coach and the clubs philosophy going forward.
It would be interesting to see the minutes of the disciplinary hearing, to know the process by which this case was judged. If no officials heard anything (which is presumably the case, as no action was taken on the field), then were they going purely on the evidence of an opposition player or players? If so, that sets a precedent that could very easily be manipulated in future.
For all we know one of our own players could’ve said they heard it, someone who knows josh personally and thought that isn’t right? that would surely be the tipping point in the evidence required to find him guilty?
Users browsing this forum: BoredWiganer, Google Adsense [Bot], Wolves17 and 108 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
