"The eye gouge is of no relevance." There you have it. Please, continue to pretend you're concerned about foul play and player welfare...

They spent last year saying, get over the Ben flower incident, it was the year before lets move on, stop bringing it up.

Yet are quite happy to keep bringing up Ben Westwood and Blake green.

And with regards to hock, he may have left four years ago, but wigan spent about ten years making excuses for him being a house until it bit them on the

Everyone keeps rattling on about an eye gouge, well I can't see it myself nothing more than pushing and shoving and hand in face, hull kr player uses head and elbow, but nobody interested in that just want to try and create some controversy, and when the Rfl say no case to answer with ablett there will be faux outrage and Rfl are a joke Leeds run Rfl comments.

Rugby league is a tough game and things sometimes boil over, if you don't like it sod off and watch soccer

I'm not saying the act itself is of no relevance, It's of no relevance [iin this discussion.[/i

Mcdermott is trying to make a point that the game needs to eradicate those type of tackles because they have a disproportionate potential to injure. He's repeatedly said it's not about wigan but the governing bodies attitude towards that tackle.

So wane get's upset and thinks for some reason leeds are trying to get a player banned and when questioned on wanes comments mcdermott stands by his comments that the tackle should be stopped.

After all that you keep rabbiting on about an alleged eye gouge in a completely different incident. It's a defence Mechanism because you are taking it as an attack on wane and wigan so are then pointing the finger at a player in Mcdermott's team and using that as justification that mcdermott shouldn't be speaking out because his players do bad stuff as well, that's the logic you are using.

The eye gouge is irrelevant because

a) It's not an incident that happens week in week out, that type of tackle is
b) the rfl have the right attitude towards the eye gouge. If found guily it receives a healthy punishment and rarely occurs.

Indeed - they're so averse to it, that they banned Scott Moore for one, without any actual evidence, other than the incessant whining of Denis Betts.

Whilst Ablett's wasnt an actual gouge, it was still unneceseray and dangerous contact with the eyes. He should be banned IMO. Especially when the evidence is more visual than the hearsay that got Scott Moore banned.

That's exactly what you're doing, same as you and other Wigans fans do EVERY year when this topic comes up.

That's why he will always be scum.

Yep, from the coach to the players down to the fans... the class always shines through.



Would love to see some stats regarding bans. After Friday's game, could Wigan potentially have the most players banned for any one game this weekend?

Is that what you are expecting to happen, in semi final week

















There's more chance of Radlinski putting his boots on and playing for nowt (again)

Well the RFL have a chance to prove the doubters wrong this week. Let's see.

Anyone know what the record is for number of players banned at any one time?

Wouldn't have a problem if he was. As you point out, it wasn't a gouge but neither was it a mere shove to the face.
But getting back on topic, I cringe when I see players from any side targeting the lower leg of a held player from any other angle than behind. The knee is only designed to bend in one direction and even a small impact that causes deviation from that can cause pain, damage or both. The irritating thing is that tackles like that could be outlawed at a stroke; there really can be no justification for doing otherwise IMO.

even behind is a problem, ball carrier falling backwards while tackler is underneath pushing knees and lower legs forwards and the weight of two tacklers on top,no one controlling him to the floor, allsorts have the potential to go wrong there.

But then if a player won't go down, and he's not held, what's your suggestion?

Ref could always call held , not as if the player is going anywhere with 2 players holding him up

that's a call for the ref's to make, how many times have we seen offloads with 2 or more in the tackle. Perhaps only way to stop the 3rd man below the knee is to make it an instant yellow or red card.....and as soon as 3rd man joins tackle legally and has a hand on the player it is automatically called held.....problem with that is it would stop a big strong forward getting the offload away.....and stop the defenders if more than 2 in tackle taking a player to ground (slowing the game down)

try tackling properly instead of causing an accident.

When's this weekends disciplinary candidates out ?

When Lenegan sends his requests into the RFL

Touché

After Wigan have played their semi final

What a pointless response. First, where is your evidence that legal tackles to the legs cause accidents. (Illegal ones are not relevant - they shouldn't happen and if they do should be penalized). There isn't any that I know of, other than the obvious fact that for every 1000 legal tackles of any sort, a fairly predictable small percentage will unpredictably result in some unintended injury.

Second, how do you "tackle properly" a strong forward who is surrounded by defenders but is still powerful enough to be making ground, which is why the ref has not called "held"?

It is easy to say the ref should call held very early, but surely you don't want to see barnstorming powerful thrusts through the advantage line neutered by almost immediate calls of "held"?

Coming through now

Sarginson, Mossop, Isa, FPN - all no charge

Edit - FPN, no charge for the hair pull, Grade A charge for the punch.