We're the least penalised side in the league with 16 but that's not the point. Our discipline being good does not mean the others sides is automatically very good. We can only legally control our own discipline and we've been doing ok with that but why does every side have comfortably their best disciplinary performance of the season against Wigan? It simply can't be a coincidence. 


I'd love to know if there is a technical explanation of how we attack and defend that could explain it there being so few penatlies in Wigan games (yet we still always lose the count).  I know Grimmy who posts on here is something to do with refereeing and somebody like that ay have a plausible reason. 

I'd like to think I'm pretty fair minded and I'm not one of those who gets stuck in to refs, think they deserve abuse etc and I know it's an extremely challenging position but the figures in black and white, both this season and last that I've looked at have just been startling. I think there are many factors at the back of them and it's creating a bit of a perfect storm. 

If the club aren't looking to have conversations with people about this, they wouldn't be doing their job and I'm sure they've been doing it. Like many things in life, those who shout loudest, tend to get what they want and I don't think we're great at that but guys like Peet and Radlinski seem the sort who want to do things with class and to give the referees the respect they deserve, by not ranting about it in public (some would call it crying). That will surely need to change if things carry on as they are. 

This narrative that Peet is Mother Teresa does make me laugh. He's a bit of a s**thouse on the sly (not saying that's especially wrong) but he's definitely got another side to him and strikes me as someone who isn't backward at coming forward. 

I saw the spat with Willie Peters that he ended up apologising for and I note that he had a pop at Newman after the game for patting Harry Smith's head conveniently forgetting Smith doing exactly the same to Welsby at the Brick a couple of years ago (not sure if Peet was coach then)


I think if Peet felt you were hard done by he would make his feelings known without a doubt.

Ironically he was annoyed with Peters for spending all day moaning at the 4th official (something the BBC commentary mentioned on a few occasions). 

If that and calling a total and utter tool like Newman out (I'm sure you agree he is) makes him a sh*thouse on the sly, so be it. 

I just think he definitely has another side to him and I've seen the mask slip on a couple of occasions. With his coaching success we've not really seen that side of him but it has appeared on occasions. 

The clumsy point I'm making is that I don't think he would have any qualms about speaking up. He's also had a bit of a tiff with Burgess last year didn't he?

Nor do I and as I said, I'm sure they'll be asking the same questions I am 'in private'. You can point to these incidents involving Peet and another coach or having a go at Newman but you'll struggle to find examples of him going in on the referees and I'm suggesting that may need to change. He could maybe learn a lesson from his mate Willie Peters.