Raynor went for a high risk move to dislodge the ball that did not come off for him because he took this risk IMO he should face the consquences. IMO the sending off was the correct action to take - not sure if any further action required as I do not believe there was any intent in Raynors actions to injure Sam.

It will be interesting to see what comes back from Red Hall on this.

Personally I think Sam has not done himself any favours and can understand why he niggles opposition fans but under no circumstance have I ever wished a serious injury on ANY rugby league player.

Wishing for physical harm upon a sportsmen, simply because they play for a different team to the one you support, is verging on the ridiculous. Moreover, it reveals your own stupidity.

As it happens, yes I clapped Raynor off. Because, from what we could see on the big screen it looked to us - and to most Bulls fans in the ground - that he had hit Tomnkins' arm and had not made contact with the head in any way. We assumed it was the usual "live match stitch up" that Bulls seem to be cursed with. Seeing the replay on TV at home afterwards made the cause of what happened much clearer, and had we had the benefit of nice clear TVs in front of us - as so many who rushed to post on these forums so clearly did instead of being there - then the clapping would not have happened. We were also sat too far away from the incident to have seen what happened in real time any more clearly. I defy many, if any, of you lot had you been sat where we were and were being objective, to have judged differently?

I did NOT boo Tomkins off. I clapped him off, albeit a bit half-heartedly since not that many seemed minded to. The player was clearly hurt, so any other course of action was inappropriate.

I think too many of you guys are assuming the reaction of the Bulls fans was because it was Tomkins. Was it bollox. It was because we believed an injustice had once again been done across us, as has happened too many times when the match is on TV and Ganson is the ref and the video ref is involved. That was why. I did not even realise it was Tomkins till later. First I heard that he had taken a hit to the head was when Eddievan, sat in front of me, got a call from his mate at half time saying what had happened.

But don't you worry yourself, feel free to wilfully jump to whatever conclusions you need to to support the view you have already formed.

I DID boo Ganson off at half time. But that was because it is the appropriate and expected thing to do if you are Bulls fan, no matter how good a game he has had.

We've all been there!!

I know where you're coming from with this Adey, but Tomkins was already past him when Raynor threw the punch (and yes, I do mean punch. The intended target is an irrelevance.). That goes beyond 'careless' or 'reckless' into the realms of 'malicious' whether there was intent to injure or not and for the record I believe there was no intention to injure. Raynor MUST have known the odds of hitting the ball were tiny in comparison to the chances of hitting the player. The concequences of making the decision to throw the punch regardless should carry a more severe penalty than a sending off. The consequences for the player on the receiving end could have been a whole lot worse than simply missing the rest of the game as he did.There's no way the same 'penalty' should apply to the offender and the victim as (should there be no ban) will have happened in this case.

Young Sam isn't averse to reckless challenges as a player is in the act of scoring, he's lucky he hasn't injured someone himself yet.

Anyhoo, Raynor was clearly trying to dislodge the ball IMO but got it horribly wrong and rightly got a red. I'm no Sam Tomkins fan but you don't want to see those sorts of things on a RL pitch - could easily have broken his jaw or similar.

Don't think Raynor deserves a ban though.

So, again for the record, you think it entirely appropriate that the offender and victim in these sorts of cases should effectively receive the same punishment?

Sam was carryng the ball under his arm. If there was no intent from Raynor, how the hell did he manage to smash him in the head?

If it was a Wigan player getting a red for the same offence it would be a public hanging. Just because its Raynor and he is means he will probably get off lightly.

I think it entirely appropriate that Raynor should be judged on whether his actions were malicious or accidental.

After watching it again today .It was without a doubt the correct decision to send him off . Deliberate or accidental it was very dangerous and could have ended up with more serious injury. There should be a ban coming Raynor`s way. I will be surprised and disapointed if he does not get at least 3 matches.

Phuzzy - you have contradicted yourself there? If you believe there was no intent to injure, then the intended target MUST have been the ball or the arm, since deliberately throwing a punch at the head would clearly be likely to injure. In which case it can only be "reckless", not "malicious"? And , in any case, "malicious" requires malice aforethought - and I doubt even the most partisan observer would genuinely believe Raynor made a conscious premeditated decision to try and take the guy's head off? Or that he stood and weighed up the odds before making a last desperate attempt to save the try?

The intended target - and the intent - is HIGHLY relevant. Had he been deliberately aiming to knock Tomkins' head off, there are plenty of precedents for the punishment he could expect. Had he been iming for the ball or the arm, then we are talking a poor decision that went wrong.

That is why the law makes distinction between e.g. murder and manslaughter, careless driving and dangerous driving, negligence and wilful negligence and so on - and grades the punishments accordingly. So should it be in cases like this.

And you are getting onto dangerous ground if you try and grade the punishment according to the extent of the injury caused. Eye for an eye, and all that, is it? The punishment should reflect the intent and the degree of negligence, not the consequences. Otherwise you could never have ANY consistency in disciplinary rulings - it would be a lottery whether you hit the guy's jaw JUST so, so that it knocked him out, or an inch out so it hurt like hell and made him mad. One inch between sine die and on report? Yeah, righto.

Watched the game on TV on Saturday and before making my comment I would also like to make 2 points.
1 I'm first and foremost a rugby league fan but prefer watching Wigan to any other team.
2 My point of view is drawn from Watching Wigan often over the past 2 seasons and the other teams less often.
Firstly, I think Sam Tomkins has been targetted, quite naturally because he is the most talented player in Superleague, more than any other player.
Secondly, I have never seen him feign injury in order to get a penalty. And I certainly have never seen him go down as if he has been shot, apart from the Raynor incident.
Thirdly, every player bends the rules, whether it is off-side, not square, ball-stealing or forward(flat?) passes. Watch any game and you can spot at least 10 players off-side on the try line when defending.
Sam has made an art of trapping the arm in the tackle. So what, numerous players do it. He has beeen found out and it is no longer in his armoury. I remember great players feeding the scrum (Alex Murphy), going off-side (Murphy again in the '66 cup final...persistently), loose armin the scrum (every great hooker), feet up (every great hooker).
Who is at fault for all those transgressions. Sure the players are but can we blame them? It's up to the referee. If I still played rugby and the ref would allow me to stand 3 yards backmat the play the ball, then I would. Who wouldn't?
Fourthly, I have complained to friends that Sam doesn't stay down (unless unconscious) when he takes a c cheap shot. He was smashed in the face by Carl Ablett and got to his feet immediately. The same happened against Howell who gave him a forearm smash. Both players were subsequently suspended. I think he gets up because he wants to show the opposition that they can't intimidate him.
I met him about 4 years ago when I took a party of schoolchildren around the JJB. He was great with the children being friendly with a good sense of humour.
Finally, people just hate him because he is so good and a matchwinner for Wigan. I think he is fantastic.

What complete and utter rubbish

I think the Raynor incident will be viewed as:

15.1(b)
When tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with the head or neck
of an opponent

Grade : B-C Reckless – tried to tackle but reckless about outcome

I don't think it comes under the A-B categories of 'Ball carrier dipped' or 'Stepped and reaching' because he had the whole body to aim at, used a swinging arm with a clenched fist which at best is poor technique, which is reckless as opposed to careless, but not intentional.

So players have not been banned for split second decisions that went wrong? McIllorum was sent off and banned for doing just that and the rules state bans can be given for such play so why would Raynor be treated any different?



They already have and have been banned for it so its a bit rich to plead "he didn't mean it" because most players don't mean it either. It's quite rare for an out and out but of thuggery to occur but that doesn't stop players who show lack of judgement from being banned.

I dont understand how any bradford fans can justify what he did saying it didnt deserve a red. NO-ONE goes into a tackle with a clenched fist unless they are trying to hurt somoene. It was a cowardly act and sadly its the only lows bradford can sink to try and beat anyone at the moment!

What fascinates me is all these 'neturals' who are "no fan of Sam Tomkins".

I understand jealousy and fear. Everyone feels that when you're up against a very skilled opponent, and yes, it's completely natural to feel relief when that opponent is removed from the action, even if you don't condone the method.

But people need to draw a line.

When this kid has got the sort of chequered past that Sean Long has - in other words a history of causing embarrassment to the game, almost to the point where it has overshadowed his very real talent - then I might just be able to understand why people would dislike him so much (without actually knowing him).

Shaun Edward was treated similarly by the neutrals. He was reviled in many quarters, even to the point where he was physically attacked by fans on the pitches at Hull and St Helens. And yet off the field he was a sound lad, who made rugby league his religion and, in the long term, has done nothing but good for the game's reputation.

Some folk really need to be honest with themselves and wonder why it is that they hate certain players. They then need to remind themselves that they are supposed to be adults, not kids.

Pillock.

They can go in like that if they are seeking to punch a ball out. If they go in reckless, it's a red. That is the situation in this case.

Childish attacks on Bradford. Grow up.

Agree with most of what you say there, but there are plenty of excellent players throughout the league who don't/didn't attract the same reaction as Tomkins (Roby, Burgess, Buderus, Monaghan, Puletua, Dobson, Richards, Hoffman etc etc).

I'm sure a fair bit of it is jealousy, but a fair bit is also the way he plays the game at times. If you were completely honest you'd probably admit that - he can be pretty objectionable.

And they can go in to try and dislodge the ball with an open hand as well and if anything that is the better technique because if it doesn't come loose you can try and get your hand underneath the ball and prevent the player grounding it. A swinging arm with a clenched fist is bound to get the player accused of deliberate foul play and it's naive to think otherwise. I have no doubt the RFL will over analyse it and let him off.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

Im not the one who is resorting to childish name calling, I think you're the one who needs to grow up.

Everything in my post is true. Bradford are in real trouble at the moment, on an off the pitch. The attendance from Bradford fans highlighted that yesterday, i've never seen a Super League ground so empty in the home stands. Funny thing is, I actually felt sorry for Bradford before yesterday, and I posted on your board before the match that I was hoping for a close match with a spirited Bradford performance and I walked away from the ground happy with what I saw untill some of your so called fans started swearing abuse at a group of us including my five year old nephew.

Knowing the lad, I find the term 'objectionable' to be complete nonsense, and coming from someone who doesn't know him, little more than a childish attempt to justify your feelings.

I can accept that Sam tries to get away with what he can in terms of rule-bending - but that's not unusual for cheeky halfbacks, as they used to be called - and by no stretch of the imagination does it justify this wave of juvenile loathing.

It's pretty clear to me that 95% of the dislike owes to fear and jealousy, and maybe, from certain opposing playes, a bit of cowardice. Sam is only a slightly built chap. I'd like to see a cardboard tank like Raynor try to plant one on Hoffman, Burgess or Puletua. Or even, back in their day, Andy Gregory or Alex Murphy. That would have been a match-up worth watching. Not.

I have watched the game back and I'm a little confused by the comment from Nobby. Why did Tomkins being substituted after the incident not count against the interchanges? Or did he also have a brain fart moment?

You cannot be real.

We have had amongst the highest average crowds in SL this season. When you or Leeds are away, usually the highest in the weekly rounds. And we gave the champions a good run for their money yesterday. Only a fool would form a judgment by the disappointing-but-expected crowd at a challenge cup match on TV in an open stadium with bad weather and an underperforming team in a poor city. What were the crowds at the other CC matches involving SL teams this year? Or last year? Come on!

Your comments against Bradford were uncalled-for and unjustified. Your judge-and-jury statements about the incident appear very partisan. Only Raynor knew what he was doing - or trying to do. You cannot possibly know, and neither for that matter can I. We can only form a view based on the likely probabilities. Can you be sure "beyond reasonable doubt"? I suggest not. And you allow "some" of our local idiots (we all have them - even Wigan, historically amongst the best in fans' behaviour IMO) to determine your opinion of Bradford Bulls. In that case, I'm afraid I have no alternative but to stand by my "pillock" description. Shame, because I suspect you are normally quite a sensible poster who has become swept along a bit with the emotion of the incident and some of the dumbass postings about it?