This is the approach you have to take, because if you looked at the evidence, you'd agree, and you can't bring yourself to do that. Look at the incidents I've mentioned and tell me where I'm wrong.

All teams get these type of results, but explain how Josh. Maguires 7 match ban fits into your thesis. Or how we have had so many bans this year but not done half the moaning your lot have with you as the bandleader.
I don’t understand how, if you genuinely believe there is a conspiracy, you can carry on watching the sport
In any event you have been peddling the conspiracy for a few seasons now albeit in different guises. Of course even the inept RL surely couldn’t be so bad that despite their best efforts to thwart you you have managed 4 in a row.

If your argument is that there are inconsistencies in the disciplinary then you are correct as there are and there always were. If you believe the inconsistencies are a deliberate target on St Helens RFC then you’re in cloud cuckoo land and we’ll leave it there.

I might put my tin hat on suggest that they’ve got it in for us with McGuires ban and the RFL making us play Catalans away in the cup rather than Halifax. They probably made Mikaele homesick as well.

In the course of a season every team has players banned for seemingly innocuous challenges or for things that leave us scratching our heads. Conversely there are always the things we all agree we got away with that should've been highlighted. It's just the nature of the sport and it's disciplinary process. You're just more aware of it of late because you're going out of your way to notice everything to support your theory. When people feel hard done by, this is natural. When we lose, we may go looking for all the small things that might have changed the outcome, we hardly ever acknowledge/notice the things that fell in our favour.

When your horrible lot are walking out onto the Old Pitch in October this will be long forgotten. Take your tin foil hat off and chill.

Take the bans on the chin, and stop all the pointless whinging every Wednesday.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The extremely scary thing is that on redvee Sad one comes across as one of the more reasonable posters!!

. I was reading the Salford forum this week seeing how they were getting on with their fundraising thing(and hoping for some dupree gossip)and they'd obviously just played saints. Quite a few of their fans said they'd rather win nothing if being successful turned them into fans like saints have got.

Why are you bleeting on at us for?
I'm sure I speak for a lot of Wire fans, I'm really not bothered if all or none of your lot get banned or not.
We all know that the MRP 'rules' are in pencil on the back of a fag packet, most fans just accept it but Saints seem to think they're on some kind of crusade for evidence of conspiracy.

My view exactly. The topic is as dull as ditch water.

Ignored my own advice! Let them bleat, who cares?

Maybe we could have a thread dedicated to "Saints Disciplinary Conspiracy Theory" and let Saddened go nuts in it and others swerve it.

I sympathise, but also like having Saddened's rants close at hand as counter evidence to the recurring claims that he is a reasonable and fair minded poster, when of course he is anything but.

Not done himself any favours with constant Knowles as caused the problem getting a ban overturned, he just won’t let it go.

Knowles has caused the disciplinary another problem, how many matches to give him for that tackle last night

Lost the argument in the second sentence there pal. That's going some even for you.

If Knowles gets a refer to tribunal today be ready for the alarm on your mobile device to sound and head straight to your nearest bomb shelter, ear defenders will be supplied if Saddened turns up in your zone

I must admit that, from the comments I've seen, even Saints fans are starting to realise the problem is with Knowles, not the disciplinary panel or the referees. I'm also interested in what comes out: not because I thought it was the very worst tackle I've ever seen, but because I'm interested in what kind of message they are going to give to a guy who can't complete a single full game after suspension without belting someone round the head.

You just don't get it do you? Just because he sticks his arm out at head height, the opposition player has a duty of care to avoid his arm and NOT to wilfully attack the arm with his head.

Just imagine the damage that could be done to poor Morgan's arm by someone's head remaining on their shoulders! I mean, if they ran into his arm hard enough they could even cause a tingling sensation or light bruising - why isn't the disciplinary committee clamping down on these players' vicious attacks on Morgan's outstretched arm?

It's not fair I tell you, that poor boy needs the refs to look after him better

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... view-panel

1 match for Drinkwater. That probably means Mata'utia at half back but then who comes in a centre? Minikin, or does he take a risk with Wrench?

Play Minikin, with Wrench as substitute.

Wrench definitely needs to play though, to give him some game time, the next reserve game is too far into the future.

Could this be an opportunity for Leon Hayes?

To be fair to Morgan his arm was only raised in the first place because he was explaining to the other player that he'd been to Tenerife for his holidays...*



*© Peter Kay 2019

He will most likely play Mata’utia there but why not Hayes, he as been included in the 21 a couple of times lately so why not give him the spot. On the other side if he did play Mata’utia as I suspect and he then gives Wrench the centre spot scenario is he plays a stormer and keeps it the following week.

Saints fans astonished we have a player banned, clearly forgot about McGuire, Philbin, Dudson and Vaughan must of just been pretend bans for those guys

We should be replacing a halfback with a halfback. Williams will be playing, it is a great opportunity to give Hayes a run.