Re [url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/10545272.Bradford_Bulls__Wigan_coach_Wane_in_retaliation_attack_over_tackling_techniques/the story that Franny has apparently officially complained[/urlabout Wigan's tackling techniques, seemingly suspecting some injuries may have been unnecessarily caused. The T&A report indicates Wane is livid, but I'm surprised there's been no comment on here. The implication is it may be something to do with the thrid man coming in to hit the stationary legs?

Anyhoo, I watched their game against Widnes with interest and there were some odd tackles.

This one consisted of lifting the ankle and trying to bend the leg right back, the defender's right knee applying pressure behind the knee.


The next one, the third man again lifts the leg into a bent position, but then also keeps hold of the ankle whilst moving back into position, pulling the leg with him, levering the held attacker sideways.


I am not having a go at Wigan in particular, I posted on here a couple of weeks ago that I've noticed a sudden rash of players grabbing and lifting legs, and it does seem, like the days when wrestling was introduced, as if there is a bit of everyone doing what someone else starts, so as not to lose any advantage.

Still, doesn't look great for the knees to me. Though tbf no injury seemed to be caused, and it may all have been just accidental, but I think we could do without this leg/foot grabbing after the player is already held.

The suggestion is that the line between 3rd man coming in, pulling knees together and stopping leg drive, is being crossed, and that deliberate and excessive use of shoulder impact at 90' against stationary knee is causing injuries.

It's a very hard one to call. Surprise, surprise Wane and the Wigan board are utterly incapable of seeing anything in perspective but it's not the first time it's been mentioned.

It's a bit hard to judge from a still photo, but it's something all sides do to slow things down. However I think the line should be drawn if a player is deliberately seen to grab and twist an opponents arm or leg or apply pressure to a joint with the elbow or knee.

The worst and most blatent one I've seen was that "challenge" by Isaac Luke on Rangi Chase.

The second one isn't too bad, he's just effecting the tackle IMO The first one is the type of thing I'd expect the RFL to be banning. His knee is on the joint and been bent.

RE Cummins making a complaint, he's always been pretty professional this year in post game interviews. Even after the Roby/Saints horror show he refused to blame the ref. So of imagine he saw a few of the first images you posted to make a complaint.

My post in VT about two refs would probably put a stop to bending of the joints if a ref is right next to the ruck, players will be squeaky clean.

Sidlow out for 12 weeks with knee ligament damage sustained against the pies.
Blythe out for 4 weeks with knee injury sustained against the pies.

You can kind of see why FC put that complaint in now.

Pretty sure wigan film all of their games so can't br very difficult to get the film and fast forward it to the 2 index incidents and if wigan are found guilty of dangerous play I would expect them to be fined.

OT regarding the challenge cup, does anyone else have the feeling the balls had been warmed for the draws, as soon ad wigan and wire got into the last 16 I said it will be a final between them two could he proved right.

I seem to remember there being a bit of a fuss over it a couple of years back, when the NRL first started looking into these kind of tackles. The one's where the 3rd man attacks a standing players knees either from the side or behind. If I remember right, Jeff Lima (playing for Wigan at the time

) got a pretty hefty ban for one that he did against Leeds at Headingley.

As usual it was another occasion where they were all over it for a few weeks an then forgot about it. It does need looking at though. It's dangerous and could cause serious injury.

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/outlaw-the-cannonball-tackle-says-bennett-20130601-2nj9o.htmlWayne Bennett wants it banned, surprisingly Michael Maguire who mastered the technique doesn't believe it ever happens[/url

Pretty sure the Bulls do their own recordings, home and away. Difficult to analyse a game if they didn't. But I don't know.


Not this conspiracy stuff again, come off it.

1. I would suggest that a suggestion both Des Drummond and Henderson Gill are bent and took part in a conspiracy is ridiculous.

2. It doesn't really matter which team comes out first, the odds are the same. But an example:

If Wigan comes out first, then that leaves 3 opponents. The odds are 2/1 against any given opponent, so it was 2/1 against Warrington coming out next. Or to put it another way, it was odds-on, i.e. 1/2, that Wigan would NOT draw Warrington.

An odds-on favourite won, that's all. Statistically, in the long run, it will do, 2 times out of 3.

And if at the last 16 stage the RFL wants a Wigan v Wire final - why don't we get Wigan v Wire finals every year, then? How come they allowed them to draw away at Bradford, away at Catalans and semi against Huddersfield last year, then? Insufficient ball heat? And how come the RFL decided to knock Leeds out for a year, what have Leeds done wrong? I'm sorry, but if you are suggesting that from the last 16 stage, someone at the RFL decided who would be in the Final, and has conspired with a large number of people to somehow rig every draw, and nobody has ever blown a whistle on the chicanery, then I think that's just nuts.

Mind you, most people really don't understand probabilities. Here's one for you, and it's not a trick question.:

A couple have 2 children. One of the children is a girl. Let's call her Myrtle. You don't have any more information.

What are the odds that the other child is a boy, and why?

1/3

Nope, not 1/3

same as if you've flipped a coin and got a head, then flip it again looking for a tail.

1 in 2. Fact they have a girl already has no bearing on second child. So could be a boy or could be a girl. 2 possible outcome both equally likely.

I don't mind if they have makes it more interesting, I'm just making an assumption from what I have seen.

Would have been a crap final with no one there if it was Catalan vs huds say, only really 3-4 teams that could take 20k fans. So the stadium dosnt look empty.

Evens

Nope.

It is twice as likely to be a boy.

We know the parents have 2 children.

We know only that one of them is a girl.

Here are the only possibilities of what could have happened
1. Boy - Boy
2. Boy - Girl
3. Girl - Girl
4. Girl - Boy

We can eliminate no. 1 immediately, can't be boy-boy because one of the children (Myrtle) is not a boy.

But the other 3 remaining possibilities are equally likely. And in 2 out of 3, the sibling is a boy.

QED

Back on topic, players shouldn't tackle other players with techniques that they wouldn't want used on themselves.

2 and 4 are exactly the same result you are trying to say 10 + 5 = 15 but 5 + 10 doesn't = 15.
So only two possibilities which are equally likely so it's a 1 in 2 chance of being a boy.

Why are the permutations of their birth order significant? There's one child, and there's the other one.

My favourite illustration of probability would be the Monty Hall gameshow puzzle:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors:

Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you,
"Do you want to pick door No. 2?"

Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Yes....i think.

But I cant for the life of me remember why.

Completely agree, the rfl seem to think nothing was amiss with wigans tackling, would be a shame if all clubs had to coach these techniques to "not be disadvantaged in comparison to others" to paraphrase Wayne Bennet.

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/10551133.Bradford_Bulls_boss_Cummins_reacts_to__massive_loss__of_Sidlow/cummins on rfl and wigan tacking[/url

[i"Cummins, who has ruled Blythe out for a month, was angered by the “cannonball” tackle he says caused the injury but will let the matter drop after lodging a complaint with the Rugby Football League.

..Cummins added: “I said at the time I wasn’t sure how Adam’s injury was caused but Matty Blythe has definitely had a direct contact with his knee from behind.

“I got feedback from the RFL but there was no action so obviously that must be legal.” [/i


I would have the Ref (or ideally a 2nd ref who is patrolling the PTB) shout held more quickly once a player is held up/tackled by 2 players and punish any movement by the tackling players (or the arrival of a 3rd) after shouting held that is not a release and move away motion. At the same time more rigidly enforce a Proper playing of the ball with the foot whilst stood still by the attacking player so as to not allow too quick PTB after a quick shout of held. We need to find some way of allowing tacking without it degenerating into touch and pass, but the tacking needs to be just tackling and not wrestling.

If held is shouted sooner it stops other defenders charging in on the attacker, and speeds the game up. If I wanted to watch a pile of men in a heap I would watch the other code!

On a related point it always worries me when I see defenders twisting limbs - normal after the tackle has been made.

No, i have set it out very clearly. this is the problem with people failing to understand probability. Even when you set it out, if they find it counter-intuitive, many people still won't have it. Don't worry - it's a common trait.

But clearly, having a girl first, and a boy second, is not the same thing as having a boy first, then a girl. This doesn't need explaining.


Because on the information you have, you do not know whether Myrtle is the older or younger child.

Now, if someone gave you additional information, and revealed that Myrtle WAS (say) the OLDER of the two children, that alters the probability. Why? Because now, you can exclude the Boy-Girl order of birth. That leaves 2 remaining possibilities, Girl-Girl, or Girl- Boy. And is an even money shout.

But if, as in the original scenario, you don't know whether Myrtle is the elder or younger, then Boy - Girl remains an equal possibility. That is the significance.

Statistically, if you picked a random sample of 100 families where they had had two children, and in each family at least one child was known to be a girl, it follows that on average you would expect to find an even distribution of birth orders. That is, there should on average be 25 G+G, 25 G+B, 25 B+G. There can't be any B+B. So that leaves 75 families standing.

If you have a £ on each family, and bet that in each case, the other child is a boy, then you will lose £25 on the G+G families, but you will win £25 + £25 = £50 on the G+B and the B+G families.

This is why the person who wrongly thinks, that in the given case of any of the families, it is an even money bet, can lose a lot of money. Exactly this principle is used to tempt mugs the world over in an extremely common three-card trick treet scam.

This depends on whether you prefer cars to goats. If you do, then yes, absolutely you must switch. The logic is very similar to my puzzle, and equally counter-intuitive.

Door A or B = a Goat; Door C = a Car

a) if she picked C and switches, she will lose
b) if she picked A, and switches then she will win
c) if she picked B, and switches then she will win.

Therefore she is twice as likely to win if she switches than if she doesn't, so she would be a mug punter not to switch.