Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:09 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You are factually inaccurate. Hohaia used a forearm to the face, not an elbow, and that is what he received a one match ban for. The Sky footage quite clearly shows Flower push Hohaia in the back off the ball hard enough for Hohaia to fall over after which Hohaia ran after Flower and forearmed him in the face. There are no Hohaia apologists; but there are deluded people like yourself who think that Flower's actions were somehow justified or lessened by the fact that Hohaia responded with a forearm to the face to being pushed over off the ball (something the referee should have dealt with at the time).

I think Flower has been lucky myself. He was charged by Wigan with gross misconduct. In any career that equates to dismissal.

Whether anyone likes it or not Flower exposed the sport to national scrutiny and any follow up from Wigan had to reflect the degree of that scrutiny because that is the degree to which Wigan have to repair his and their reputations. Two versions of Flower's punches to Hohaia have been seen by over one and a half million people each on YouTube alone. Add to that pictures in every online news agency and print publication plus the footage on 24 hour TV news bulletins here and abroad as well as the audience for the match itself and that is significant damage done to the reputation of Ben Flower and, by association, Wigan (and the sport as a whole if the kind of discussions that went on in the aftermath are anything to go by).

absolute tripe. Who cares how many saddos checked it out on YouTube? As I said before, it's got to be sackcloth and ashes or the moral majority get all sparked up. Flower committed a serious offence but for Gods sake I wish people would get a grip. And if anyone actually believes that he needs counselling then I would suggest they book themselves in for a session too.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:59 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You are factually inaccurate. Hohaia used a forearm to the face, not an elbow, and that is what he received a one match ban for. The Sky footage quite clearly shows Flower push Hohaia in the back off the ball hard enough for Hohaia to fall over after which Hohaia ran after Flower and forearmed him in the face. There are no Hohaia apologists; but there are deluded people like yourself who think that Flower's actions were somehow justified or lessened by the fact that Hohaia responded with a forearm to the face to being pushed over off the ball (something the referee should have dealt with at the time).

I think Flower has been lucky myself. He was charged by Wigan with gross misconduct. In any career that equates to dismissal.

Whether anyone likes it or not Flower exposed the sport to national scrutiny and any follow up from Wigan had to reflect the degree of that scrutiny because that is the degree to which Wigan have to repair his and their reputations. Two versions of Flower's punches to Hohaia have been seen by over one and a half million people each on YouTube alone. Add to that pictures in every online news agency and print publication plus the footage on 24 hour TV news bulletins here and abroad as well as the audience for the match itself and that is significant damage done to the reputation of Ben Flower and, by association, Wigan (and the sport as a whole if the kind of discussions that went on in the aftermath are anything to go by).

no it doesnt

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:32 pm  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

:SLEEPY: absolute tripe. Who cares how many saddos checked it out on YouTube? As I said before, it's got to be sackcloth and ashes or the moral majority get all sparked up. Flower committed a serious offence but for Gods sake I wish people would get a grip. And if anyone actually believes that he needs counselling then I would suggest they book themselves in for a session too.

Everyone is outraged these days and frankly it's laughable.

I think you hit the nail on the head/offered a perfect example with the mention of counselling for Flower. It's just a massive OTT reaction to what was essentially a rush of blood to the head by Flower. FWIW i think 6 month ban was a fair punishment and whilst i don't agree with 6 months half pay i can see how the club have come to that decision (paying him to just train and not play.)

Just look at the 'outrage' caused by the comments of a 77 year old man this week. What Whelan said isn't socially acceptable these days but at the same time i bet a very good percentage of his generation think in a similar way (Duke of Edinburgh anyone?). To call into question if he's fit and proper to run WAFC a laughable OTT reaction. He's poured his heart, soul and vast amounts of his money into WAFC and is loved by WAFC fans for this.

I think it's sad how society seems to bend to the people who find 'outrage' in everything.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:29 pm  

This should have been an internal club disciplinary matter.
The results should have been kept in house without all this publicity.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:42 pm  

Father Ted wrote:

This should have been an internal club disciplinary matter.
The results should have been kept in house without all this publicity.

That's a fair point.

For all the joking on here about announcements or lack of them something like this is something that didn't need to be made public knowledge.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:24 am  

I thought the club initially said that they wouldn't be enforcing their own punishment and would wait on the RFL's decision?

I think they really should have kept this in house. The dust had finally settled, and now they've kicked it all up in the air again with announcing this.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:13 pm  

Aboveusonlypie wrote:

99% of the media and those in the mob who have demanded nothing short of hanging for Ben Flower couldn't care less about Rugby League, it's just something to vent their spleen about before they move on to Kim Kardashian's bum or Kate Middleton's new baby or whatever.

What about justice for Ben? Doesn't it bother you that he has been disproportionately punished? So far, he got sent off, Saints won the game, Lance is just fine, he got a six month ban, he loses win bonuses, he has to go on a course to educate him about not hitting people (I might have made that bit up), now he loses the equivalent of six weeks salary. All because there was bugger all else happening in the sporting world that week.

Meanwhile Dylan Hartley stamps on a guys head in a ruck and gets ten minutes for his trouble(to pick just one random example of sporting thuggery that has hardly been noticed in the meantime).

Flower got his "justice" when Hohaia didn't press criminal charges against him.

Plus part of the punishment has been set by your own club, this week, a fair while since the incident where lots of things have been happening in the sporting world since.

Plus Hartley didn't stamp on the lad's head. Anyway stamping can be part of a ruck in Union, and SA were continually, illegally, trying to take the ruck down from the floor so the lad was in the way and was trampled over.

(His leg was stamped on, his head wasn't)

I think many people have really overreacted to Flower's incident, but a fair few Wigan fans have made out the criticisms of it are as comical as when old whisky nose Ferguson said Ashley Williams "could have killed" van Persie when he booted the ball at his head a few years ago. The reality is Flower punched someone in the head who was prone and defenceless after being knocked down. A punch to the head to a man stood up, the punch can be absorbed by the rest of the body; yet on the floor a direct punch to the head doesn't get absorbed anywhere but the brain.

What I'd like though is for Flower to serve his sentence and a line to be drawn from there. That'll be his justice, if you like, but he needed punishing for what he did. When you look at what he's been dealt, it's only six week's pay and a 13 game ban. It's not that bad at all when you think you can be banned for two whole years for having a few lines of coke.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:49 pm  

Most football clubs have an internal disciplinary code for sendings-off, yellow cards etc. with the financial penalties agreed by the PFA. I would not be surprised if something similar existed in RL but just not publicised to the same extent.

If you look at the RFL disciplinary decisions virtually every SL player is fined £300, regardless of the length of the ban. I guess that there is something in place whereby the clubs dock wages at a given level as well while a player is serving a ban to differentiate between the severity of the offences on a financial level.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:39 pm  

BuckleyStreetWire wrote:

Flower got his "justice" when Hohaia didn't press criminal charges against him.

Plus part of the punishment has been set by your own club, this week, a fair while since the incident where lots of things have been happening in the sporting world since.

Plus Hartley didn't stamp on the lad's head. Anyway stamping can be part of a ruck in Union, and SA were continually, illegally, trying to take the ruck down from the floor so the lad was in the way and was trampled over.

(His leg was stamped on, his head wasn't)

I think many people have really overreacted to Flower's incident, but a fair few Wigan fans have made out the criticisms of it are as comical as when old whisky nose Ferguson said Ashley Williams "could have killed" van Persie when he booted the ball at his head a few years ago. The reality is Flower punched someone in the head who was prone and defenceless after being knocked down. A punch to the head to a man stood up, the punch can be absorbed by the rest of the body; yet on the floor a direct punch to the head doesn't get absorbed anywhere but the brain.

What I'd like though is for Flower to serve his sentence and a line to be drawn from there. That'll be his justice, if you like, but he needed punishing for what he did. When you look at what he's been dealt, it's only six week's pay and a 13 game ban. It's not that bad at all when you think you can be banned for two whole years for having a few lines of coke.

Hohaia is lucky Flower didnt press charges against him also.

Re: Wigan complete Flower's Disciplinary Process : Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:59 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You are factually inaccurate. Hohaia used a forearm to the face, not an elbow, and that is what he received a one match ban for. The Sky footage quite clearly shows Flower push Hohaia in the back off the ball hard enough for Hohaia to fall over after which Hohaia ran after Flower and forearmed him in the face. There are no Hohaia apologists; but there are deluded people like yourself who think that Flower's actions were somehow justified or lessened by the fact that Hohaia responded with a forearm to the face to being pushed over off the ball (something the referee should have dealt with at the time).

You're seriously making that distinction as if it makes some kind of difference? Then go on to say ''there are no Hohaia apologists''. Seriously? Have you never heard of irony in St Helens? The fact is Hohaia escalated something that happens in almost all games and turned it into something that resulted in bans. His being the FIRST incident that required a ban btw!

I'm also not deluded as you'd no doubt know if you actually read my posts rather than responding in such a knee jerk way. At no point have I EVER said Flower's actions were justified. I have even said on this very thread that his actions were inexcusable. What does get my goat though is this constant insistence by certain Saints fans, yourself included, that he somehow 'started it'. Unless you accept that every penalty should be open season for the players to take summary justice, then he didn't 'start it'. No more than it could be said that the first penalty given away by Saints should have resulted in the Saints player being elbowed (or forearmed if you prefer!) for his indiscretion. Is that seriously what you're arguing for? I understand you coach junior rugby. Is that what you tell your charges? I certainly hope not! The fact is, penalties are a part of any sport. Taking the law into your own hands isn't. That's what Hohaia did and that's why he 'started it'...

Just one more point. If you're so keen on pedantry how come you were so keen to distinguish between an elbow and a forearm hit; something that ultimately has no real bearing on the offence or the punishment yet you somehow failed to point out that Hohaia actually got a 2 match ban, not a 1 match ban? Very strange that, don't you think? No Hohaia apologists? Don't make me laugh!