3 strikes and your out should be the message.

He,s had 2 warning letters already for doing the same damaging tackle.

Did it on Atkins (Wakefield) Cunningham (Saints) both resulting in injuries.

I reckon a third attempt will cost him a suspension, if not then I think the players will sort him out on the pitch.

They'll have to catch him first, which thus far few have been able to.

Your probably right, when you fear for your safety you run faster.

Wellens must be c0ck of the north then

Do you try to be stupid, or does it come naturally?

I don,t know you should be raising the question with RFL, they have dealt with the matters and the incidents are factual.

And is it factual that all the players will club together to sort him out? Has there been some kind of secret meeting to which you alone of all the fans in RL were invited?



Just out of interest, which schoolyard full of kids do you normally make these dire threats to?

That a player tackled, below the shoulders, another player who wasn't held? Or how about the decision not award two penalties?

Fixed.

Because the tackle wasn't complete means that he can target the knee?

There's been no complaint that the tackle was late, it wasn't, there's no argument that he couldn't go in to complete the tackle, he could. It's the manner in which he went in that is up for debate, a fact that a lot of you appear to be ignoring.

A week of cringeworthy defence of Cunningham over the Stosic incident and now 3 non-stop cringeworthy days of attacking Tomkins for his legitimate tackle of Cunningham!!!!! Embarassing!

But if you're honest, it's pretty difficult to tackle someone round the legs without, in some way or other, targeting the knee.

You're right - injury could have been caused, but it can be caused by any number of legal tackles in RL. Some Wigan fans may be going OTT a little in their defence of Sam here, but game's are played at 100 miles an hour and you can't not go for the legs in case you hit the knee, especially when the player concerned is patently not going down and looking to unload.

Some of you guys really do play up this 'Self Pity City' image that Scouseland is famous for.

Let's be very, very clear about something - Cunningham decked someone last week with near enough a clear-cut punch in the face. Maybe accidental, maybe not. But it was much worse than Sam's offence. Leave this issue now and stop making yourselves look like a bunch of 'one rule for us' plonkers.

Of course they are. Tomkins is their little hero boy. They aren't going to diss him for anything, in spite of him having been examined by the beak [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary.php?player=Sam+tomkins&club=wigan&from_day=1&from_month=2&from_year=2009&to_day=3&to_month=8&to_year=2009&league=&charged=&search=searchfive times in his lengthy 17 game career[/url. I'd say that record speaks for itself. We don't need the Pies to acknowledge it.

And similarly we don't need idiots like you to acknowledge the legitimate arguments put up in his defence - but they're there, whether you like it or not, and the RFL clearly accepts them.

But it's a bit rich, a Saints guy whingeing about a bolshy Wigan halfback, when, among others, you lot have idolised Alec Murphy, Neil Holding, Tommy Martyn, and ... oh yes, let's not forget, Sean Long, whose antics to date are probably among the most embarrassing in the history of the sport

What manner? With his shoulder on the thigh. That's how I was taught to tackle.

In some way or other yes, but plenty players manage to do it week in and week out without hitting the standing player fully side on on the knee.



It can be, which is why cheap shots aren't welcomed. And it was a cheap shot.









A argument of 'but look at what someone else did' is the argument of a child, if you didn't think what he did was incorrect, fine, but if you did say so. The fact that the RFL deemed it necessary to issue a warning indicates that there was something wrong with the tackle.

On the punch issue from last week, I thought Cunningham did punch Stosic, but then many a punch is thrown in SL and very rarely are bans dished out for it.

It wasn't into the thigh though, it was into the knee. That's the whole argument on this.

By the way, IMO the warning letter is sufficient on this incident. I don't think he should have received a ban for it.

But not many whilst lay on the ground at the play the ball!
And your fans & Coaches defence of him was cringeworthy!

Potter I didn't mind, coaches tend to do that kind of thing, but I'd agree with some of the fans defence. It's plain as day that he gives him a whack, you can see him shift his grip on the ball to do it.

Though if someone hadn't started that completely untrue rumour of severe injury the outcry wouldn't have been anywhere near the same.

And your fans defended him almost to a man and said it wasn't anything!!!!

Then Tomkins makes what is a legitimate tackle (No-one will ever know if he MEANT him an injury) and there looking to string him from the nearest Gallows!!!!

TBH it's all a load of boll0x and if that's all Staind fans can moan about after a game as hard as that then it'll do for me, They know they have, like Wigan don't, any excuses.

Most composed team won and both teams come out of it with a lot of credit!!!!!!!

There's not a bugd between the 2 now and if both clubs use their heads and recruit half decent and retain the right youngsters from their respective crops we'll be having a lot more arguments over tight games in the next few years!!!!!!!!

I suspect we may even be on the right end of the results a few more times as well!!!!!!

Sorry, I meant that I agreed with you on the Saints fans defence. It's as dodgy as you lot defending Tomkins





That's why I think the warning letter was appropriate.



Too true



We won, what else would we moan about?






Agreed, bar that last sentence

I look forward to the RFL's new rules for 2010.

"Defenders may only tackle an opposition player round the legs from the front or rear, and only when in motion. Defenders may not tackle from the side, and certainly not below the waist, and certainly not when the attacker is stationary and prone. If the attacking player has been held for a moment and the referee has yet to call 'held', players must pre-empt the referee's call and refrain from tackling for fear of a warning letter. Nevertheless, should the attacker manage to offload or continue his run, play will be allowed to continue."

How the feck is Burrow supposed to tackle Big Eorl??

Pathetic. Whether it caused damage or not, it was a legal and legitimate hit. Fatty KFC and his wailing fan club need to get the feck over it and move on.

Summed up very nicely.

I've never seen such a none issue blown up out of all proportion quite like this before.

If Cunningham hadn't spat the dummy out nothing would have been said or done by the RFL and i think we all know that.

FFS get real, it's rugby, he was perfectly legally tackled, it's not tick n pass, move on. Just cos everyone else tackles around the torso / head, it's noticeable when an effective low tackle is made. It's certainly how I was taught to tackle by a former Wigan 1st team coach.