Oh dear. Silverwood was in the way of the defensive line close to the try line. In the Hock case IIRC it was after Wigan had conceded a try and Ian Smith was walking away when Hock lost it and pulled him back.
But don't worry about little things like facts when Ryan Bailey's involved.

It's so obvious that I don't know why anyone hasn't brought it up before!

RFL: Right Wigan, we want you to lose this week, because it will make a good story. So don't try as hard. What? What's in it for you? You do as your told. Right, get on with it.

Players: Right away sir!

Half time: Right, good first half, no one has twigged. We want you to go three tries up, and then squander the lead. Make it look convincing, we don't want any loose ends!

Players: OK, this makes perfect sense and I certainly don't mind match fixing for no benefit to me personally whatsoever.

If only you hadn't come along and exposed this trickery!

Must be mistaken identity, Mr Bailey wouldnt ever do a dis-service to the game, you need to check the vt.

Its a pleasure to read the balanced view of things on here, as the Wigan board is full of ranting loonies at the moment. I have no problem with the choice of team, it was a team that should have won, if it had we would have been bragging about our strength in depth. Indeed we should brag about it. No one can deny it was a close game, which we could have won, and it gave valuble experience to young players. Was it too much of a change, well the result says so, but will these players be better losing in a game like this, than being brought into a playoff game and losing there. This was a game about our future, not our past.

Every credit to Widnes for wanting the win more, and getting it.

Great post...

I did post about a lot of your fans loving the squad when it was first put up,
Going on about the young talent, the amount of local boys etc only for them to be back on after the result totally ripping it to shreds!



So it's good to see a post of this nature...



Cheers

Oh dear - potentially two for the price of one.

Have a look at the incident and decide exactly who did what that was so terribly wrong: [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxxpgZOHNk&feature=youtu.be&t=1m47s[/url

Didn't see anything particularly wrong when watching the game Friday night, but then I haven't looked at the different angles or was looking for them like the panel will have done. Then again I'm not the one that'll need convincing there was anything in either of them.

The disciplinary seem to have tighter up a lot this season and I can't remember many (if at all) getting off when they're up before the beak.

Do you mean the bit where first Brent Webb, and then Ryan Bailey, clearly push Silverwood? This being "deliberate physical contact with a match official", described as being a grade D-E offence in the On Field Compliance Sentencing Guidelines from 2010.

Pro tip: when claiming innocence, try not to produce evidence that demonstrates guilt



Whether you or I think that particular incident is 'so terribly wrong' or not isn't important - there are good reasons why players don't have the right to push the referee around, no matter where they're stood.

On the issue of respect, I wonder if there'll be anything more about the incident with Ganson and the physio? I didn't hear what was said, but Ganson clearly took exception to it and gave the physio in question a dressing down.

Ganson? Respect?

If you think that constitutes "pushing the referee around" then you've clearly got a different definition to me.

On both occasions the players were trying to get to where they needed to be in the defensive line, the contact was momentary and not even strong enough to cause Silverwood to go off balance. It's nothing like the Hock case where he physically grabbed Ian Smith after play had been stopped IIRC.

From memory, I don't recall Silverwood passing comment about the contact to either player at the time, although he did talk to Bailey about "waving his arms around" when the player went to remonstrate about him being in the way after the try was scored.

Obviously a slow week for the video review panel. If that constitutes a three game ban then the disciplinary process is a farce.

My definition is, basically, the player physically pushing the referee. I don't know what your definition would be of, if it didn't involve that.



I understand your objection: you think that, because the referee was stood between Bailey/Webb and where they wanted to be, the player has a right to physically move the referee out of the way. I'm sure that you supporting the team for which those players play has nothing to do with your opinion. I don't think it matters that Silverwood doesn't go off-balance. I don't even think it matters that the push changed Silverwood's position or the course of his movement (which it certainly appeared to, from the video). I suspect the disciplinary panel don't think it matters, either.

I expect the disciplinary panel do think that it matters that there may have been no obvious intent to intimidate or hurt the referee, and an element of not being able to change their own direction, which is why it's currently a grade C, and not D-F, as the sentencing guidelines would suggest.



It's [idifferent[/i to that case, but it's [ilike[/i it in that the players deliberately make physical contact with the referee - which is the description of the offence. Also, Hock's grab at Ian Smith didn't cause him to go off-balance, so it's like it that way, too





That counts for nothing. I don't remember Alibert making a big deal about Chris Bridge's elbow to Ben Jeffries' chest, but the disciplinary panel still thought he had something to answer for.

Yet earlier silverwoods poor positioning saw two warrington players barge into him. He got himself into poor positions all night

I guess it's the thin end of the wedge - they'll want to send a strong message out about respecting the official; for me, no player should be putting their hands on him and that includes Lee Briers little pats on the back when he's conned them into yet another penalty.