Re: Thugby : Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:28 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Ah... The simple joys of wasting your life away observing swine interacting with pearls.

Being accused of being unintelligent by Wiganers makes the whole thing all worthwhile though. I mean seriously: me? Unintelligent? By some gene-deficient Wiganer? Oh bugger me bandy... My aching sides... "Mindless, humourless plebs" just doesn't quite cover it somehow

Hi Simac.

When did you move to Northampton? Or is it one of your famous pieces of misdirection?

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:23 am  

Wigan28/Leeds18 Andy wrote:

Lets have a competition:

Which of the two teams in the Grand Final had the most players found guilty of foul play this SL season?

I was looking at this over the weekend so would like to have a go at answering.

By my calculations both Saints and Wigan had 7 players charged during the Super League season.
Is that correct?

Additionally, I also noticed Saints had 26 other incidents looked at resulting in "No Charge".
Wigan had 48.
Quite a difference there.

I couldn't help but notice that Sam Powell was looked at 5 times during the season.
Two of which were in the last two games and two of which were within two minutes in the same match.
Four of the five incidents were for direct contact with the standing/supporting leg(s), with the other also in regard to tackling technique.
I thought that quite interesting.

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:46 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

I'm not looking at any further statistic because I don't have time to - as much as I'd like to compile a full model on the matter, life gets in the way. It's not any statistic, I've given my reason why I used the statistic I did and you yourself said it was a fair point.

You can ask "but whose perception is it" all you like - but it's clearly a common held belief amongst fans outside of your club. I think Wigan play closer to the line than other clubs, the stats I provided backed that up. I've not accused Wigan of being dirty or anything else, but I can understand how people interpret the citings as such (that doesn't mean they're right).

If wigan as a club don't want to be accused of "thugby" they need to step in line with the number of citings (the number of times they get close to stepping over the line) with other clubs - whatever that takes.

I'm sure Phil Clarke will have all those stats ready for the next time he bores the crap out of us with stats.

Strangely not seen or heard of him since last Saturday

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:48 am  

The Riddler wrote:

Additionally, I also noticed Saints had 26 other incidents looked at resulting in "No Charge".
Wigan had 48.
Quite a difference there.

What is quite interesting, is that Wigan had an extra 22 incidents looked at, which resulted in no charge. So an actual difference of 0 charges brought against both clubs.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:04 pm  

The Riddler wrote:

I was looking at this over the weekend so would like to have a go at answering.

By my calculations both Saints and Wigan had 7 players charged during the Super League season.
Is that correct?

Additionally, I also noticed Saints had 26 other incidents looked at resulting in "No Charge".
Wigan had 48.
Quite a difference there.

I couldn't help but notice that Sam Powell was looked at 5 times during the season.
Two of which were in the last two games and two of which were within two minutes in the same match.
Four of the five incidents were for direct contact with the standing/supporting leg(s), with the other also in regard to tackling technique.
I thought that quite interesting.

Not quite - I said found guilty in the SL this season. Being charged with something does not imply guilt. Saints have had more players found guilty of foul play in the SL this season than Wigan. However you'd think Wigan went onto the pitch with AK47s with the bile threads like this throw up. Hull KR and Catalan had more players found guilty than either Wigan or Saints.

As already been stated there is no difference the number of incidents resulting in no charge because there wasn't actually anything wrong in terms of foul play that required any kind of disciplinary punishment. Perhaps it shows even the RFL are falling for the urban myth and when they actually look at the detail there isn't anything there.

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:52 pm  

St pete wrote:

I'm sure Phil Clarke will have all those stats ready for the next time he bores the crap out of us with stats.

Strangely not seen or heard of him since last Saturday

And where precisely would you have expected to see him? Newsnight? Never Mind the Buzzcocks? Down your local?

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:34 pm  

Aboveusonlypie wrote:

And where precisely would you have expected to see him? Newsnight? Never Mind the Buzzcocks? Down your local?

He was probably expecting a personal email full of grovelling apologies for being a Wiganer, which in typical grandstanding Saints fan fashion, he could then reject.

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:44 pm  

St pete wrote:

It's because you play with an aggressive nature and people still remember the likes of Hock and Newton.

Also the way Wane comes across doesn't help things.

I wouldn't say Wigan are dirty, I'd say they play aggressive and play on the edge and nothing wrong with that but when your an aggressive team like that it gets other fans wound up so when Wigan do over step the mark it then becomes "thugs".

However, I do believe Wigan have had some of the dirtest plsyers to play super league in Hock, Newton and Micky Mac.

Kieron Cunningham received no ban whatsoever when he forearmed a player in the face whilst on the floor, and fractured said player's eye-socket (Stosic of Wakefield). No ban, no threat of police, for what was a far worse incident. It is just a shame that Flower didn't keep his composure, because he's NOT a dirty player, far from it; but had he done so it should have been St Helens down to 12 men for the match, and I suspect they would have lost by more than 40 points.

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:50 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

I'm not looking at any further statistic because I don't have time to - as much as I'd like to compile a full model on the matter, life gets in the way. It's not any statistic, I've given my reason why I used the statistic I did and you yourself said it was a fair point.

You can ask "but whose perception is it" all you like - but it's clearly a common held belief amongst fans outside of your club. I think Wigan play closer to the line than other clubs, the stats I provided backed that up. I've not accused Wigan of being dirty or anything else, but I can understand how people interpret the citings as such (that doesn't mean they're right).

If wigan as a club don't want to be accused of "thugby" they need to step in line with the number of citings (the number of times they get close to stepping over the line) with other clubs - whatever that takes.

Why would they need to look at the number of times "they get close to stepping over the line"? I don't see your point. The line is drawn where it is for a reason (i.e. that it isn't foul play) so why should they look at addressing play that's within the rules of the game. Shall we also look at addressing incidents that were close to being cited? And then incidents that were nearly close to being cited? Then incidents that were almost nearly close to....well I think you get the point! The rules are set out. Play within them and that is fine regardless of what some fans perceive. To be perfectly frank, if we listened and, God forbid, acted on what some fans perceived we'd have Ben Flower arrested and put in jail (and even worse!) by now.

Re: Thugby : Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:17 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Very poor comeback matey but never mind - I know it's a big step up to the big leagues when you're taking on the likes of me and not everyone's up to it. At least you tried and will never look back in years to come and wonder "what if?". It's better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.

Poor comeback? You were grammatically incorrect in a post that was inferring other people were 'mindless'. The two definitions of irony below might interest you as you clearly have trouble understanding the concept!



•a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.



•a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.