He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, but just because it's an opinion that does not mean it's unassailable.

I would take these latest comments of Brown's more seriously if, on two occasions that I now know about - assuming press reports are correct - he hadn't made apparent threats of violence against players in other teams.

It may be that those comments were 'heat of the moment' outbursts, and that he regrets them. But head coaches need to think about these things.

After several matches this season when Wigan have won well, the opposition coach has immediately come out with some unprofessional statement which has sounded suspiciously like sour grapes.

Personally, I'm surprised and disappointed to see Nathan Brown, who previously I admired, join this list of infamy.

I can't comment on the game at the weekend as I havent seen it to be honest but we suffered this last season when we won games Coaches were quick to criticise our style of play. I think if you read the BBC in another comment NB has no qualms about Wigan being better than us on the day - it was more around the challenge by O'loughlin (again can't comment on it as I havent seen it unfortunately).

As far as I have seen he has made no reference to any other incident than the one above. I think his comments are more on the state of the game in the UK here than Wigan RLFC. If you re read his comments on the BBC he actually says that Darrell Griffin should have got a 2 game ban last year for a 'grapple tackle' but got nothing. He has used a Giants player to further make and justify his point.

Red Hall are just too inconsistent.

While Brown is way way off the mark using lockers as an example as there was nothing dangerous about the tackle - he kept his arms down and didn't hit robinsons head, he was a little late.

As others have said if a player is sheilding the ball and putting doubt into the defenders mind then you are creating a risk that you may get tackled without the ball - as happend.

What should definately be punished is an attack to the head - whether late or not - the incidents near the start of the season by Morley and Carvell spring to mind as examples where the RFL were p8ss poor in letting both off when it was clear they hit the head of an opponent. If brown used these as examples then he would have far more credibility - (they aren't the only ones of course just two blatent bad decisions that spring to mind.......)

His general comments about the leniency of the RFL are spot on I think - it's just a shame he uses such a poor example as locker's tackle as it makes him out to be a whinger.

I remember when a head high tackle was an automatic 10 match ban - it soon sorted out the standard of tackling........

I don't think you will find many friends of Red Hall and the way the disciplinary works on this board. The points most Wigan fans are making is Brown lost the right to comment by advocating his players take the law into their own hands and that he picked the wrong target suggesting Lockers should get an two month ban as an example to others. He's one of the fairest players out there and definitely one you would give the benefit of the doubt to compared to say Morely at Wire where we had a long running debate about his tackle on Hansen earlier in the season for example.

Dave

I'm not sure what the penalty for a grapple tackle is/can be so I'll refrain from commenting on it too much other than to say if the punishment, as laid out in the rules of the game, state that it should result in a ban then he should have got one. If not, Brown shouldn't be bleating about it.

As to the O'Loughlin tackle, there was no case to answer. There was no high tackle, it was fractionally late but, as many have said (Wigan fans, other teams supporters and ultimately the judiciary panel) he was entitled to make contact as he was already commited to the tackle. The only 'admonishment', if you can call it that, that he received was because his shoulder made contact with Robinson's head. Given that he is 5'7" and O'Loughlin over 6', that's hardly surprising! Both his hands in the challenge impacted on Robinson's chest. It was a legitimate challenge that could have, in the opinion of the panel, had a little more care taken. Nothing more. Brown is bleating about 2 month bans for something that is part of the game. No malice. No attempt to injure a player. Nothing. Just a slightly late legitimate challenge.

Now, Giants hat off for a moment, is his reaction that of a hypocritical, whinging coach who has a history of bleating about something whilst at the same time sanctioning genuine violence from his own players or not?

Now, Giants hat off for a moment, is his reaction that of a hypocritical, whinging coach who has a history of bleating about something whilst at the same time sanctioning genuine violence from his own players or not?'"

Well first of all I think you need to read his quotes before posting in future. He is quite clearly sanctioning violence by his own players! He isn't saying that it's ok for his players to do the same as O'Loughlin at all. What he is saying is that if the ref doesn't make decisions according to what HE deems to be be the correct way, then he will instruct the likes of Mason to go and exact their own revenge!

Secondly he [udoes[/u have a history of this as he threatened the same retribution over in Oz when he similarly didn't like the judiciary's decision!

I don't mean to be rude here as I'm sure you're a well meaning and sensible poster, but I can't see the point in continuing this debate with someone who clearly hasn't aquainted themselves with the facts before posting.

Good luck for the rest of the season.

Apologies not seen any of the material you refer to in Aus about his past - you are better informed than me on that one - no problem. I didnt take your reply as being rude at all - I guess that is what forums are for all sorts of opinions.

Certainly no offence meant in any of my comments made on here.

Lets hope for a good game a week Sunday and likewise good luck for the season.

take the lockers incident out of the picture what he says about redhall is true . what ever you do yu know its a warning letter and a £300 pound fine is ridiculous, some incidents need to be punished harder than this and its just not happening.

i dont know why you are insisting that O'loughlin is 'one of the fairest' and as such beyond reproach when outside wigan he has quite the reputation for a head hunter, it seems your wigan bias has heavily clouded your judgement here,

saying that, its not really fair to pick a player and tackle at random and decide to make an example of them.
There is no reason, however, that the RFL couldnt use this to draw a line in the sand and say we will be on the look out for it in the next games with heavy punishments for those who transgress

so what? im no giants fan, and dont need to protect Brown, but if you think tackles like O'loughlins arent practised and the idea of putting a hit on the playmaker even if you are a late isnt a tactic openly discussed at clubs you are very very naive.

Why is Brown asking Mason et al to use other similar tactics any different?

No mate I'm not naive. I've also been watching this game for well over 20 years so trust me when I say I know the difference between putting pressure on a kicker (or passer in this case) and attempting to take someone's head off. What Brown is advocating is retribution for something [uhe[/u doesn't like, eventhough it's no different than anything else that warrants a penalty in a game. O'Loughlin was doing something that has been part of the game for as long as it's been played. If you (or he) don't like the fact that it doesn't always go perfectly then I suggest you're watching, and he's coaching, the wrong game! Are you seriously suggesting that coaches should send their players out with the instruction that whenever a decision doesn't go their way they should take retribution?

One further point. If you seriously think a late tackle is the same as sending players out with the instruction to take the law (of the game) into their own hands as you suggest in your last sentence then it's you who is naive....

i think that props putting themselves about a bit has been part of the game since it began. I think an enforcer protecting his backs may well be written into a props job description.

I think asking a prop to risk giving a penalty away via sly punch, a high tackle, a swinging arm, a bit of a facial, , maybe if at all possible provoke a fight so they can try a bit of intimidation, get a bit of retribution and maybe make O'loughlin (or any number of other players) think again before they try it, is absolutley no different to asking O'loughlin to put a hit on the playmaker whether he is late or not to try and put a bit of doubt in the playmakers mind. Its two sides of exactly the same coin

Here's Tony Smiths take on it from the Warrington Guardian. Seems like he thinks Brown was out of order making the comments and then goes on to mention our "enforcers". Makes for an interesting game come Saturday....



[urlhttp://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/wolves/wolvesnews/8150162.Smith__Headache_to_select_the_Warrington_team/[/url

Other than one is an error of timing and the other is an error of intent. If you can't tell the difference then the debate is meaningless.

Just to clarify. If I run someone over as a consequence of an error in my driving is that the same as me purposefully, willfully and deliberately setting out with the intention of running them over in your opinion?

if you run someone over through a reckless disregard for safety then yes.

If you want to pretend O'loughlin is angel who wouldnt dare throw himself into a tackle knowing full well he will likely be late then fine. I dont mind. But every team, in every league trys it, maybe Wigan are different, maybe they are making a subtle stand for the Corinthian spirit of sport and everything illegal or bit naughty they do is completely accidental, who knows

But all other 13 teams in SL do it, they will all take the risk of hitting the playmaker late to try and intimidate him and put him off his game, they will all rather hit him late than not hit him, we see it numerous times a game, asking your props to put themselves about a little in retribution is hardly something to get your knickers in a twist about, this isnt ballet

And Smith is spot on in what he says. In particular; "I can understand where he is coming from but your own backyard has to be clean to say something like that and I’m not sure that is necessarily the case." hits the nail on the head. Brown is a hypocrite, pure and simple. Dressing it up as anything else is laughable.

someone should tell the little Aussie runt we dont care about his opinion.

Mate, you really can't distinguish between something that happens as a result of persuing the game and something instigated outside the rules, can you? No one is suggesting the game isn't hard or that foul play doesn't occur. As I said earlier, if you are unable to tell the difference your contibution to this debate is rendered meaningless.

Let's just try one more time. If someone is accidently shot as a consequence of a hunting accident is this the same as someone going out with a gun to shoot someone deliberately? Now, I can't for a minute believe you genuinely don't know the difference, in which case, why are you struggling with the concept of someone being challenged late as a consequence of something that goes on in the game as opposed to players deliberately going out to hit/hurt/injure players? Surely it's not that difficult a concept to grasp?

I'm not even saying that O'Loughlin's tackle shouldn't have been penalised. It was, by the rules of the game, worthy of a penalty which is exactly what it got. I also don't see the problem with forwards going out to intimidate other players as long as it's done legally. In fact, it's a major part of the game. This is not what you're defending here. You're defending the right of coaches to send out players with the sole intent of attacking opposition players just because said coach doesn't want to be subject to the same laws as everyone else!! You rightly say this isn't ballet. But it isn't a mugging either!

Looking after the little guys is something we were always taught, but that was done behind closed doors. Brown has now made at least two PUBLIC statements to this effect, boasting that his tough guys will take care of business if the ref doesn't.

It's the public aspect of this that's the problem. It's the sort thing Danny Dyer comes out with in lads' mags. A bit pathetic really.

Tony Smith is hardly going to back Nathan Brown is he when he was named along with Cummins quoted as saying we can't ban all players because there would'nt be enough quality one's left!!

Serious questions for you as you seem intent on giving your opinion on this. Do you honestly think that a fractionally late tackle (not high or swinging arm or anything like that, just fractionally late) is worthy of a 2 month ban? Also, do you honestly believe that the appropriate response to a coach not getting what he wants is to tell his players to go out and take matters into their own hands? Seriously....

Brown is a idiot

Cant wait to see his tough guys teaching SL a lesson.

no what you are doing is trying to pretend that O'loughlins actions were purely accidental and a result of a mis-timed challenge and not a result of training and tactics that see it worth risking a penalty to throw yourself at a playmaker whether you are late or not. I just dont see a huge difference to a deliberate action hurting someone and a deliberately reckless action doing it.

Im not saying O'loughlin hit him late on purpose, im saying he didnt care if he hit him late. I dont see either as something to defend. If we allow leeway for actions like O'loughlins we allow leeway for any reasonable retribtution, anything else is simply hypocritical.

Its like you are defending O'loughlin because what he did was sly and that it is somehow worse to be up front about it

The public aspect smacks of pressuring the RFL to do something about it. and you're right, it doesnt show the game in a great light but neither do these late challenges we see all the time