Kevin Turvey wrote:Another comment on the Wigan board that Shorrocks going to Salford will see Partington come to us with Dwyer heading to Salford. May be some movement in the next few days if that’s the case.
If we do sign Partington, and having already secured Musgrove and Powell, there will certainly be a lot of spite in our forwards.
It`s something that we have been missing for several seasons.
Joined: Sep 20 2005 Posts: 1070 Location: The Yard
Boss Hog wrote:If we do sign Partington, and having already secured Musgrove and Powell, there will certainly be a lot of spite in our forwards.
It`s something that we have been missing for several seasons.
There was a time when that would have been great. These days it probably just means more players missing more games through falling foul of ridiculous disciplinary charges, sadly.
The Speculator wrote:There was a time when that would have been great. These days it probably just means more players missing more games through falling foul of ridiculous disciplinary charges, sadly.
It`s OK to flatten an opponent, you only get a 2 match ban.
If you call an opposition player naughty names however, that`s when you get hammered by the Disciplinary Committee.
Boss Hog wrote:It`s OK to flatten an opponent, you only get a 2 match ban.
If you call an opposition player naughty names however, that`s when you get hammered by the Disciplinary Committee.
I’ve got to challenge this comment. It’s never been ok to use someone’s disability as a stick to beat them with, and definitely not an opponents kids disability,
The only change is that if McGuire had the bottle to say it in the 70’s/80’s the sanction would have been that the next time he got the ball he would have received his “suspension” in the form of a broken jaw. The worlds turned, you can’t seek retribution on the pitch anymore, so the sanction has to be passed on to a governing body.
It’s not about being woke, or not being aloud to say mean words the same rule still apply which is don’t be a bell.
Joined: Jul 17 2015 Posts: 4641 Location: Sitting on the naughty step
I suppose the issue is “parity” is using the language that Maguire used as serious as putting your finger where the sun doesn’t shine. In our criminal law the former is viewed as much more serious than the latter.
Just my opinions unless it's a FACT, in which case it's a fact.
Joined: Jul 17 2015 Posts: 4641 Location: Sitting on the naughty step
the start point for the least serious form of digital penetration is 2 years custody. The criminal offence of language similar to Maguires would be a S4/S4(A) the MAXIMUM sentence is 6 months
Just my opinions unless it's a FACT, in which case it's a fact.
Joined: Sep 20 2005 Posts: 1070 Location: The Yard
Just to clarify, my earlier comment about ridiculous disciplinary charges was referring to the Paul Vaughan 'incident', if you can call it that, not what happened with McGuire. But we appear to be drifting off topic with all this anyway.
Barbed Wire wrote:I’ve got to challenge this comment. It’s never been ok to use someone’s disability as a stick to beat them with, and definitely not an opponents kids disability,
The only change is that if McGuire had the bottle to say it in the 70’s/80’s the sanction would have been that the next time he got the ball he would have received his “suspension” in the form of a broken jaw. The worlds turned, you can’t seek retribution on the pitch anymore, so the sanction has to be passed on to a governing body.
It’s not about being woke, or not being aloud to say mean words the same rule still apply which is don’t be a bell.
i can't believe people still dont get it, its baffling.
Just to clarify, McGuire's original offence wasn't using someone's disability to make them feel bad, nor was it targeted at anyone's children. It was use of a derogatory term against an opponent in the heat of battle, a term that is rightly now not acceptable as a common insult in 2023. I think the problem that some are alluding to is that the punishment for using that derogatory term on the pitch was harsher than punishments for physically harming or fondling an opponent's bits. I can see that argument and have no problem with it myself.
The irony of this is that I've seen board members on another RL site branded as 'imbeciles' * (actual term used) for arguing against the punishment for use of the term 'sp*z'. Go figure!
Anyway, it's an emotive subject and I'd rather sit that one out... Politics is best left to Twitter or Facebook.
*imbecile (plural imbeciles):
(obsolete) A person with limited mental capacity who can perform tasks and think only like a young child, in medical circles meaning a person who lacks the capacity to develop beyond the mental age of a normal five- to seven-year-old child. (derogatory) A fool, an idiot.
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
Politics is best left to Twitter or Facebook.
