If it is the same incident I am thinking about nobody has anything to worry about.
When the ref called Lockers over he said "I didn't blow up for a cannonball tackle it was for you (meaning lockers)making an attempted shoulder charge".
In the playback you can see Lockers charging in half with the shoulder and chest as he does, that was why the penalty was given.

Powell went with real force at the back of Tilse's knees. He got his head in the wrong position and his face hit Tilse in the back. If he hadn't led with his face a dead cert cannonball tackle. That was fortunate for Tilse. The Rovers players at the ruck were not happy.
Reckon Powell will get at least a warning if not a game or two. Maybe ´lockers' will get one for the shoulder charge.
Lost count how many times Mickey Mouse slapped our players at the ruck as he was running off. The look on McCarthy´s face when he was slapped by him was bemusement anger then hilarity. Your hooker is a f##king imbecile and liability. Long may you pick him.

He penalised Powell for going in after he had shouted held and said it wasn't a cannonbal tackle. The Lockers shoulder charge was another incident when the HKR player lost the ball in the tackle.

Rouges I definitely heard the Ref say it wasn't for a cannonball tackle it is for the shoulder charge, not certain if it was for the same incident.
But if you say they were two different incidents I stand corrected, more important things to do now I am off down to the Club with the family.

There was 2 incidents with Powell involved 1 definitely was a cannon ball tackle i think our hooker grabbed Powell straight after

Nilled some opponents struggling to put out a team. Can't see a win in the next month

I agree especially with our poor away form

Completely wrong but don't let that stop you.

Whether it's your game or not (which it is, at least in part - unless you're suggesting Wigan prefer slow PTB) - the fact remains that on the front foot your backs are as good as any in the league.

Granted, the fullback position is a bit of an issue at the moment. But overall I thought the backs (including the halves) stood up pretty well.

That game was won and lost purely in the forwards. In the first half your pack stood up pretty well against Hull KR's bigger and more aggressive pack. But in the second half it was the same old problem. Going forward your props and hooker seemed to lose interest in scrapping for those one or two extra yards which make all the difference. This created a yardage deficiency which was further exacerbated by the smaller guys in your back row exhausting themselves tackling Hull KR's bigger men. If you watch the video there's a palpable upsurge in Hull's efforts with twenty minutes to go (initially after a confidence-building defensive stand on their goal line and then in response to the distressed signals your back row was giving).

Admittedly Hull KR's try involved a fair slice of luck. But when you're not taking chances and tiring rapidly it's only a matter of time before your opponent sees momentum swing his way. As stated, I just don't think it's wise playing Bateman and Farrell for extended periods together against sides like Hull KR.

Totally agree with Mugwump about our very lightweight second row. Farrell and Bateman must be totally shot as the second half progresses. When I saw them both named in the second row with a half fit loose forward behind them I thought then that the writing was on the wall. Not sure that Wane had many more options though with our injuries at present.

What has happened to Logan Tomkins? He's never going to be on the level of Micky Mac of course, but I do believe he's a better option at 9 than Sam Powell is. Was great against Warrington, and his defence has considerably improved and he hasn't been seen since. Thought the intensity dropped considerably once Powell came on for MM.

After a lot of expansive rugby of late, I was very surprised to see us seem to flat and predictable, Smith and Williams were outdone by Campese all night. But I do think we missed Tony Clubb and Flower more than the 'lightweight' second row people are saying on here IMO.

There's a few threads on the usual opposition forums that are highly amusing

End of the day, we were crap and thats that

Do you think so? I've been on Saints, Wolves and Rhinos recently and find myself in despair. I can agree that the obsession with all things Wigan can be amusing but some of the bile, particularly with regard to Faz's injury, is very unpleasant to read. The poster Big Steve (I think) got it right with his comment on certain individuals that populate the Internet. You can see it in Wigan Peer's sig if you're interested. The whole environment wherein people can behave outrageously in anonymity is, I'm fast realising, just not somewhere I want to be. Could be its time to put foolish things behind me.

I suppose it depends on how seriously you take it. Most of the half wits who post this tripe wouldnt dare say it out loud to their target audience so i take it all with a pinch of salt

Far more important things jn this life to get upset about

I won't let it stop me because i was completely right cannon ball tackle from behind and silverwood pulled out SOL and warned him about Powell he even pointed at him 2 or 3,times

Will wait to see what the rfl say

Wrong again, it's still not stopping you.

He pulled out SOL and said the tackle by Powell was fine but it was after he called held. Let me repeat exactly what Silverwood said:

"I've no problem with the way he's gone in, the penalty is because he's called held then he's gone in. It's not a cannonball."

End of convo.

I've just watched it back, Silverwood sspecifically says it's not a cannonball about 3 or 4 times, the commentary team point it out too. The penalty was because he had already called held when Powell went in

Nice to know I was wrong, way the referee blew immediately after the tackle made me fear the worst.

Quote ="Oafy"I won't let it stop me because i was completely right cannon ball tackle from behind and silverwood pulled out SOL and warned him about Powell he even pointed at him 2 or 3,times'" Wrong. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6413

Quote ="Oafy"I won't let it stop me because i was completely right cannon ball tackle from behind and silverwood pulled out SOL and warned him about Powell he even pointed at him 2 or 3,times'" Wrong. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6413

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Wrong. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6413'" RFL fail to cite Wigan player shocker don't get me wrong I'm didn't come on to comment on the tackle as a witch hunt against Wigan but it was a naughty tackle no matter how you sugar coat it the fact his face hit tilses backside first altered Powell's movement and saved tilse from a injury, Powell did a similar tackle to Graeme Horne in the 1st half as well which went unnoticed

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Wrong. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6413'" RFL fail to cite Wigan player shocker don't get me wrong I'm didn't come on to comment on the tackle as a witch hunt against Wigan but it was a naughty tackle no matter how you sugar coat it the fact his face hit tilses backside first altered Powell's movement and saved tilse from a injury, Powell did a similar tackle to Graeme Horne in the 1st half as well which went unnoticed

Maybe, just maybe they didn't cite a Wigan player because there was nothing to cite - the only naughty bit was it was after the ref called held and a penalty was correctly given.

Have some self-respect and stop digging that hole.

I guess your right I'm losing all self-respect because i happened to comment on a RL forum about a tackle which in my opinion looked naughty,

It looked "naughty" because you wanted it to, and it's been proved you were... now what's the word... WRONG...

The ref was wrong, the replays on Sky were wrong and the RFL having looked at it are also wrong.