Reading the RFL report it seems that Lima did receive some clemency as the offence normally carries a 2-3 match ban (for each offence). He was lucky. I think the fact that the club has stated it is working on his tackle technique has saved him from a four match ban.

People on here have been saying that the tackle on Wilkin didn't happen or wasn't as bad as the one on Soliola or was in no way a chicken wing. It seems the RFL take the opposite view:

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2320[iIn respect of the second incident the committee feel this was a more serious offence[/i[/url

The Wigan side of events

he didnt look in any pain at all.

got short memories you saints fans.......gf?......pat richards?
i didnt see him whining to the ref

Yes, of course.

Making sure he misses the WCC is mercy at its finest. A bit like: "You don't have to do the hard labour bit, but you're still going down for 30 years."

Why don't you pack it in with these pathetic attempts to justify Wilkin's vindictiveness (wasn't it you who came out with the earlier gem - "he was looking to protect other players"





)? You've got the result you wanted, and given the full arguments presented by both sides at the hearing there's no point anyone debating it any more. But none of that is going to stop Wilkin being seen as a snidey little shyt and being despised even more than he was when he first made his name as the game's number one coward and cheap-shot merchant.

Impressed by this:

Wigan Warriors' Chairman, Ian Lenagan said:

"We were disappointed last year at the number of sentences which were overturned upon appeal and were one of the Club's requesting that the RFL change and improve significantly the fairness, balance and transparency of the Disciplinary Process. Our experience in this case where a key Wigan player has been banned from an extremely important game is that the process is much improved and highly professional. Consequently, we accept the decision, albeit with disappointment for the Player and the Club, and look forward to a Season of consistent and fair Disciplinary Panel decisions and general acceptance of decisions taken"

Wigan Warriors' Chairman, Ian Lenagan said:

"We were disappointed last year at the number of sentences which were overturned upon appeal and were one of the Club's requesting that the RFL change and improve significantly the fairness, balance and transparency of the Disciplinary Process. Our experience in this case where a key Wigan player has been banned from an extremely important game is that the process is much improved and highly professional. Consequently, we accept the decision, albeit with disappointment for the Player and the Club, and look forward to a Season of consistent and fair Disciplinary Panel decisions and general acceptance of decisions taken"

Arrest my case.

The NRL changed all that a long time ago. Hence why any Kiwi up before the NRL judiciary always seems to get a disproportionately long ban so he misses the ANZAC test.

To be honest I'd prefer it if he shouted about the injustice of it all and how everyone is out to get Wigan. This kind of classy and dignified approached did us no favours last season and puts the club in a bad light, especially with some of its fans.

That is incredibly childish! Had he only committed one offence then he would not have missed the WCC. However, he committed two. Hence the two match ban.

If this is consistently applied throughout the season then I have no argument with it. I doubt it though.

"and your action in using your body weight to force the opponent’s arm and shoulder in an abnormal direction that involved an unacceptable risk of injury to that player."

Having watched the Wilkin tackle, I fail to see the above. If raising your arm as if in a classroom is an abnormal direction then fair enough, but I just don't see where there was any abnormal range of movement in the tackle.

Surely the same principle would apply to the challenge cup. If a player is banned during a league match then he counts the challenge cup games as part of his ban. Or if he is banned during a challenge cup final or round then league matches count as part of his ban. I. M. O. Lima should be ineligible for the WCC unfortunately.

As childish as you trying to claim that Wilkin was only looking out for his fellow players?





I mean, what kind of cretins are you used to preaching to?

Given that Lima's missing the WCC as one of the games, a two-match ban is highly disporportionate, in my view. But Wigan aren't contesting it, so that's the end of the matter.

So long as the consistency is maintained all season - which we'll be watching for with deep interest.

Don’t you know you’re not allowed to base your opinions on trival things like watching the replay???

You have to base your opinions on what someone else has said.

Like the person who did it? Shocking isn't it.

What were your initial opinions of the incident? Did you think it was a chicken wing tackle?

I know I’m not on my own on this one in saying I didn’t think there was anything in it ad I’ve watched it a few times since I still can’t see anything untoward. Why should I now change my opinion because Lima has pleaded guilty? Do you not think he might have lied in order to get off lightly? We know that Wigan don’t seem to appeal anything the RFL hands out to them so maybe this was his only option.

To me the club have shown great restraint and respect to the disciplinary procedure and the RFL. They could of easily appealed and going off last year it would of probably at least got reduced by one.

To me the tackles didnt deserve a ban but i dont make the rules and i dont know to the exact word how they are interpreted i.e how much pressure on the arm gets you pulled up etc. I wouldnt be so ed off if all similar offences were punished the same though. To get a 2 game ban for something that other players have only had a penalty against them during a match is just totally out of proportion and very unfair.

No issue for me - all it means is that a player who contributed to getting to the WCC will now get a chance to play in the game. It might lessen our chances of a win in the WCC, but I always thought we would be up against it in any case.

Hopefully Lima will learn some lessons from this and adapt his tackling technique accordingly.

Top of page 9:


Both were treated as separate incidents and he pleaded guilty to both so we can't ignore that. He gains absolutely nothing by pleading guilty to both when he didn't need to. He could just as easily pleaded guilty to Soliola and not guilty to the Wilkin one - he didn't.

We only see what Sky decide to show us, the RFL get all the other camera angles on it for the disciplinary. Lima has held his hands up and admitted his guilt and taken his punishment, why you and other can't is bizarre.

i'm surprised that phil clarke didn't spot the incident

Too much imo.

Why show respect for it if all our rivals are abusing it? It only serves to weaken us and benefit everyone else.

I get that IL is building up IL’s rep since the mo days but sometimes we bend over backwards to please a body that has a serious agenda against us.

Btw I’ve seen Wakey have got Murphy off the hook. I really don’t see why we haven’t gambled.

It should be a a 4-6 match ban though.

He is guilty and, like the sensible people on here, fans should be breathing a sigh of relief he sin't missing the Wire game (although that would have been very harsh)

I think the fairest outcome was found. Hopefully he will learn. It is all on Lima now. I don't know what will happen if he is found guilty again. Anyone care to enlighten me?

So if you can't work anything out about it and many people on here can't see anything wrong why should we change or opinions based on what Lima says?

Can't disagree with that - it was a sensible outcome, but was actually lenient given the sanctions available and the double guilty plea.


Upper range of the potential sanction I would have thought (3 matches per offence on this occasion).

To be honest if we had appealed i feel we would have lost. That lot would have loved to uphold the ban and add another 1 match for good measure.

I like the way that IL acts even if i do not agree entirely. This kind of situation on serves to build a siege mentality and i would not be surprised if MM used this negativeness to our advantage.

This is a much better situation than having IL looking like that prized chimp Heatherington or the like.