Wasps get off after enquiry

WhitecapTiger · Post by **WhitecapTiger** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:07 am

I have a feeling all involved will just be going through the motions, paying lip service to it all, with the outcome being nothing more than a slap on the wrist as Pam alludes to, a stiff rebuke, harsh words, which the pests will publicly accept though still protest their innocence and champion their motives, whilst behind the scenes they'll be laughing all the way back to wycombe (on the coach) and the remainder of the rugby world will be left scratching their heads wondering what the hell is going on.....

I hope I'm wrong, and am happy to be proven wrong......

Skin_and_Muscle · Post by **Skin_and_Muscle** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:36 am

If Wasps get off without proper punishment, the rest of the clubs should organise, surreptitiously, a boycott. If Wasps can cancel a game with justifiable concerns of player safety, then it is surely justifiable to say "it's rugby, serious injuries occur if we play; we don't want to play Wasps as someone might get injured."

If all the clubs did it, it may result in a few more points for Wasps in forfeited matches but they get to experience the financial woes that they have caused on a far greater scale.

Vindictive, moi?

Cliffeclimber · Post by **Cliffeclimber** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:49 am

Don't get so wound up by this. It's only a group of blokes trying to make a living as best as they can in these difficult times.

Pests are like bankers (is there any more insulting comparison?) who think that their personal gain is more important than anything else. They always have been and always will be.

If this loop-hole is closed, like the uncontested scrums dodge, then they'll find some other way to give themselves an edge, and s*d the rest.

We ought to remember that there are probably players on their team who also feel that this is a particularly dirty trick to resort to in order to avoid defeat.

salcombe bob · Post by **salcombe bob** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:36 pm

5 points to Sale and a points reduction of 2 points against Wasps.

Crumby · Post by **Crumby** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:57 pm

Dont think it would be fair to give points to Sale because it may effect other clubs if sale end up in a relegation or top 6 issue. Therefore i think a 4 point reduction to Wasps and a replay sorts the points issue , iwould also advocate the Wasps pick up at least 50% of Sales costs.

Tiger_in_Birmingham · Post by **Tiger_in_Birmingham** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:59 pm

Crumby wrote:Dont think it would be fair to give points to Sale because it may effect other clubs if sale end up in a relegation or top 6 issue. Therefore i think a 4 point reduction to Wasps and a replay sorts the points issue , iwould also advocate the Wasps pick up at least 50% of Sales costs.

Wasps only refused to play Sale so only Sale should benefit.

It should be 5 points for Sale as a walk over, and the penalty to Wasps should be financial and very heavy

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:29 am

Wasps only refused to play Sale so only Sale should benefit.

So if a Wasp player is banned for five matches for an offence against Sale, then he is banned only for the next five occasions he would have played against Sale and not banned against any other club!

I would deduct 15 match points from Wasps for an offence much worse than Bloodgate, and give Sale 5 points for that particular match. Also a fine to cover Sale's losses for that match.

tigerburnie · Post by **tigerburnie** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:50 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_u ... 374983.stm
So Mr Baron thought it put rugby in a bad light,master of the understatement.

Carter · Post by **Carter** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:39 pm

http://www.salesharks.com/news/sharks-v ... not-proven

Surprise surprise!!!!

Darc Tiger · Post by **Darc Tiger** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:41 pm

Ridiculous.

I wonder what Tigers would have got if it had been us!

Simmo · Post by **Simmo** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:55 pm

That should open the floodgates for future......would they have beat us yesterday without a 2 week break?

CJ · Post by CJ » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:00 pm

outrageous. could open the flood gates (sorry about the pun) to any team who doesn't fancy a game for whatever reason.
they bottled it again, didn't they?

Noggs · Post by **Noggs** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:02 pm

The insects 'walk on water' yet again!!!! You have to question why bother?

Sale must be indignant at this decision with no finalcial comeback on offer. Who can blame them?

The decision throws it wide open for any team who don't like it muddy to send for the pizzas at will. The blazers need to gey this sorted or there will be blood on the floor.

zena beck · Post by **zena beck** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:03 pm

Simmo wrote:That should open the floodgates for future......would they have beat us yesterday without a 2 week break?

yes they would have beat you even if they had not had 2 weeks off because they were the better team on the day and also did not make so many errors as the tigers did

Leicester Tigers

Wasps get off after enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Re: Wasps face enquiry

Wasps get off after enquiry

Re: Wasps get off

Re: Wasps get off

Re: Wasps get off

Re: Wasps get off

Re: Wasps get off