Wigan fans ignore things that doesn't go in their favour, Marshalls foot on the dead ball line at Wembley the perfect example.

and you cant have a go at their players either

I've read it. They do not say the elbow was not raised, because of course it was. As anyone can see the arm moves away from Watts' body and into MM's jaw. The RFL decision was to charge Watts and to consider the sending off sufficient, which clearly supports the on field decision, you know, the opposite of proving it wrong. I understood this, it seems you did not, despite it not being joined up writing, as you say. Thanks for the laugh though. Perhaps next time you want to try and be a smart you'll make sure you understand what you're talking about before insinuating someone else doesn't.

Thanks, you're reply has just proven my initial thoughts that you struggle to understand the written word with your second sentence.

If you're surprised I presume you've never been to wigan

And such is the force and pent up aggression of Watts lethal weapon of a left arm, McIlorum literally bounces off in the opposite direction as though poleaxed by the mighty Thor himself.........

But no, Watts fairly relaxed arm is forcefully pushed back into this torso by a Ram Man esque tackle attempt from possible the worse technique shown all season.

If a red card was given for an elbow to the face, the ban would have been 4-6 games. That no ban is forthcoming is the realisation it was an incorrect call. To end up with sending off sufficient, is the RFL attempting to back the inept officials involved.

HTH...

Reading really is not your strong point.
[i"Elbow and forearm of player are [unot[/u promoted." [/i

Promoted is a synonym for raised, lead, elevated, advanced... Need I go on?

I just don't understand how they can basically say he has done nothing, yet come to the conclusion that he should have been sent off?

I could be wrong, but have the RFL ever said "referee/officials were wrong"?

Do you know the difference between malicious and reckless? I'll give you a clue, it has something to do with that word "promote".

Not quite correct. The word promote is specific to intentional actions. I understand that nuance and why it's correct for the RFL to state that. Believe me when I say I take no pleasure in this, I genuinely cringe whenever someone on the internet attempts to belittle someone else's understanding of English whilst displaying their own ignorance.

I genuinely don't think you understand what the word promote means.

Promote; give a higher position to, elevate, move up, raise,

Whereas I know you don't.

Careful, we'll be getting Rovers fans back on here next with their definition of 'promote' and it will get even more messy.

Personally, I'm glad Liam's back for Thursday and hope it will galvanise the team further for the final run in.

100%, the RFL were never going to criticise the officials, but we've got him back and he'll be raring to go, along with Ellis and a few others who could return.

AS a Wakey fan I'd much rather Watts was not playing on Thursday, but it was never a sending off in a million years. McIlorum was trying to put a big shot on and got done by his own poor technique. Glad Watts didn't get a ban and I feel that Hull would have won that game if they had 13 /17 men available.

Glad Watts is available but it was a bad decision to send him off. The SOS verdict is a grudging admission by the RFL that they got this wrong but to save face they have gone for that rather than "not guilty" which is also an option. As has been commented already an awful lot else happened in this game which has been ignored. Same as the Wigan v Saints game the week before which was a very nasty affair yet resulted in one warning and little else. The common factor in both game? The cheating pies of course. It seems their games are held to a far more liberal interpretation of what is acceptable compared to other teams.

So what did Wigan do in the Saints game?

I also assume every game of RL not involving Wigan is a game played without any foul play whatsoever? Get real.

There's 16 pages of drivel regarding a red card incident that is now done and dusted. We have the rest of the season to look forward to now including a big game against Wakefield on Thursday, so if you want to discuss wigan, you'll be better off going on the wigan forum

OK Dave...

You're welcome, Standee

Without wasting too much time on a blind moron like you, you are the same fool on another thread who thought that Powell's cannonball tackle that ended a player's season was fairly dealt with.

All games have incidents of foul play, cheating and injury, just in Wigan's games it occurs at a higher frequency.

I didn't bring up Wigan's "cheating". Nothing to say to them? Thought not.

I've still never had an answer to this question and I've been asking for years. Looks like I'll still be left wanting...



Speaking of blind. I didn't say it was fairly dealt with. I offered no opinion whether it was fair or not, someone said he wasn't punished and I said he was as he received a 1 game ban.

So you still don't want to bring any stats to the table to prove your point? You have an opportunity, and I'm sure everyone would love to finally get some real concrete proof of their conduct being worse than other RL teams. Right now you may aswell accuse Wigan of fielding pixies and unicorns because you have as much proof of that.

Here's Leon Pryce's advice for Liam

[urlhttps://twitter.com/leonpryce6/status/907569076230336512[/url