Hey Phuzzy,

no worries mate - for what its worth I think his comments could come and bite us on the backside this season - one would hope not but we'll see.

Cheers mate

You have to laugh at the sheer brass neck of the bloke. Brown moans saying that a player "has to run on with a knife and stab somebody to get a ban". I'm wondering what more a coach has to say to get himself reprimanded from the RFL? Call the entire Red Hall staff a bunch of baby-raping, crack-dealers? Probably get a strongly-worded letter telling him not to say nasty things

Wigan fans in not understanding Browns comments. Just goes to show how far they have fallen when you used to be able to get intelligent and educated comments from Wigan fans.

Now when they are having success again they are becoming all arrogant ( the new Leeds fans

) and think that the world revolves around them and everything that is said is about them.

=#FF0000This is what most posters semed to have missed.Look at what he said
The RFL are weak
The referees are weak
The disciplinary system is a joke ( it even lets my players off=#FF0000 when i think they should be banned)
Because the RFL is weak people like me and other aussie coaches who see the RFL as weak will manipulate this for our own ends.
Smaller skilful players are targetted by other teams sometimes unfairly
The RFL need to make examples of players who break the rules to assert their authority

Wigan fans read
O Loughlin should have been banned for 8 games.

there is no more proof that O'loughlin did it accidently than there is he did it deliberately. I knew someone would get all precious about 'their' player which is why have endeavoured to separate this particular incident to the fact it does happen all the time. I dont care whether O'loughlin was deliberately reckless or not, it was a specific incident that has long since passed. What i do know is that it happens far to often in all games to all teams for it not to be, in most cases reckless


Im more than comfortable putting the burden of safety onto the tackler. If we punish those who are reckless (and you are reckless whether deliberate or not by definition of hitting the player late) the same as those who are deliberate players will no longer be reckless.

ahh, so you are trying to explain something i have said to you. Seems a strange way to have a conversation if im honest. I would have thought it obvious i understood by definition of me saying it to you.

Once again, you are reckless by definition of hitting the player late. It happens far too often for about 10 plays every game to be accidental. Whether you are deliberately reckless or just reckless is of no interest to me, move the burden of safety onto the tackler and they will stop being reckless and deliberately reckless, it will stop a players 'accidental' shooting out of the line and throwing themselves into a prone player
You are almost there. You have almost understood the deliberate recklessness. O'loughlin wanted to put pressure on the player, he was reckless as to whether he did this legally or not. We know this 100% because he hit the player late, either he isnt a very intelligent player or like everyone else he was aware that chances were he wasnt going to make it in time. He either didnt know what he was doing and was running around like a headless chicken, in which case he should be punished for being too stupid to play the game (which considering some of our players would be quite an acheivement) or he made a split second decision that it was worth risking taking a prone player out late and illegally which is deliberately reckless.

at this point i have no qualms with a prop handing out reasonable retribution to a player who was reckless and illegal in hurting one of their backs. Its part of the charms of the game.

And again you seem to accept that a player hitting an opposition back whilst he is kicking late and recklessly is somehow morally ok because he can always pretend he didnt mean to, yet massively over-reacting to a Prop giving a bit of niggle in retaliation

You're defending your coach. We're defending our player. If you look back plenty have said that Brown made plenty of good, not to mention worrying, points in his statement. Where Wigan fans are saying he is wrong is his claim that Lockers should have been red-carded and banned for what in truth was nothing more than a poorly-timed shoulder charge, which sounds like little more than sour grapes. Does anyone think he'd have carried on like this if Huddersfield had played well and turned us over on Sunday?

If this is what he said about the RFL then they should show him what teeth they have he should be brought up in front of the RFL And charged with bringing the game into disrepute. He should then have his coaching licence taken off him in the UK for 6 months and fined £20,000 for his trouble.

We all know this wont happen but this is what is needed to stop coaches spouting off to the media as it does our game no good at all.

You've got it in a nutshell. There is no proof. Therefore you can't make assumptions based on what other players have done. It's nothing to do with "their" player as you put it. There are rules governing the game which [uall[/u sides are subject to. In this instance O'Loughlin's tackle was seen as late. Not high. Not malicious. Just late. The correct decision was a penalty. It doesn't matter whether you, Brown or my aunt Fanny does or doesn't agree.



You can't play the game under those circumstances! You profess to know the game. This simply proves otherwise. You can't ban every player that makes an error! There are penalties within the game for those circumstances. They're called...oh yeah, PENALTIES! Just for the record, who decided what is reckless and what isn't? The judiciary? See where we're going with this....



Unfortunately it shows no such thing. What it shows is that you don't understand the difference between explaining your own words to you and pointing out the inconsistancies. I was doing the latter.


And you would ban EVERY late tackle? If that were the case all any player had to do to get an opposition player banned would be release the ball before the tackle came in. You're seriously advocating we go down that route? Laughable! And, incidentally, this from someone who advocates enforcer props! BTW is EVERY high tackle also reckless and therefore worthy of a ban? I'd love to see how many players would be sat on the sidelines. What about a bit of biff? Bans all round? Need I go on?



So that's 10 players per game would be banned. Really looking forward to the next Hudds/Wigan game. Maybe we could both bring our boots just in case!



It would also be called football. No thank you. I like my tackles to be commited. But let's agree to differ on this. I'll send you an application form for a season ticket for the Latics.




O'Loughlin wanting to put pressure on the player is not Reckless. It's how the game is played! Have you ever actually watched a game? The rest is just garbage so I won't bother responding.



You reall are a hypocrite, aren't you! Retribution is "part of the charm of the game" and making tackles and occassionally getting them wrong should be stamped out? Jeez, I couldn't make this up!




Do I actually need to point out the ridiculousness of this paragraph? Really???

.

it is reckless by definition of him hitting the player late. You are the one apportioning intent or lack of it. I have simply stated what is a fact.

But if we go with the referees decision then we go with the referees decision, thats fine. If Nathan Brown wants to send his players out there with the idea that if a player is reckless with his timing of 'tackles' on his backs, then maybe his forwards should also be a bit more reckless with the height of their tackles also, then that is also fine, after all you cant ban every player who makes an error and it is up to the judiciary to decide on intent. Mason et al can just say it was an accident, prove otherwise

No, you repeated back to me what i said about O'loughlin, then said something i had said nothing about relating to Brown

yes, i would either ban all late/illegal challenges regardless of the outcome (though not necessarily to the same degree) or i would be lenient on these late challenges but also lenient on any reasonable retribution handed out.

You seem to not want bans handed out for a bit of biff, yet are upset that a player should instigate 'a bit of biff' in retribution for a late challenge on a prone player

Really, you wouldnt want to watch the game because it would be too much like football all because players can no longer shoot out of the line and hit a prone player they didnt really have a chance of catching legally?



yes it is, if cant see that your an idiot. Ill try and put it a bit simpler for you.

When committing a challenge like O'loughlin did there is always the chance the opposition player could be hurt or injured. Within the rules of the game O'loughlin has no responsibility, When he steps out of the rules of the game he takes total responsibility for the outcome. O'loughlin took the opportunity to put pressure on the player but was reckless as to whether or not he did this within the rules of the game. His primary concern wasnt to play within the rules of the game, nor was it for the safety of the opposition player. It was to put pressure on the playmaker, by any definition this is reckless

do i need to point out how ridiculous you look trying to patronise people when its clear you dont understand?

its an either/or situation, either we are lenient with late tackles and as such the retribution that may be forthcoming (as long as it is reasonable) or we stamp out both. What we dont do is allow sly and cowardly late challenges (when only the prone player is at any real risk) and clamp down on any intimidation that would follow it, down that way football headed.

For the third or fourth time, im not advocating one or the other, im advocating both or neither.

And again, just in case you get precious about O'loughlin, maybe it was an accident,maybe Wigan have never done anything illegal by anything other than accident, maybe they are making a stand for the Corinthian spirit back to sport, but there are 13 other teams who just happen to accidently do the same thing very very often, Maybe just maybe we could ask them to be a bit more careful with other peoples safety, and if we dont, maybe we could just keep them honest?

I'm still struggling to see what his problem is. The tackle was a little rough, initial contact was made in the chest which with momentum went into his jaw. No swing arm, not leading with an elbow. Its a type of tackle you do to knock players down, which O'loughlin does well. Get over it Brown.

I think at the most he should of gotten 10 mins, i don't believe it deserved it tbh but if anything was to come of it, 10 would be it. Also being early in the match the ref, rightfully, gave a warning.

If anything Mason should be up for attacking a player as he punched Micky that is a fairer description of "attack".

AND before anyone tries to tell me it was late...

get out of it. When you watch it in replay thats is SLOW motion. Normal speed it's not late. Robinson shows his back so he's either dummying or passing. Lockers would have been amateur not to have committed.

Correct the RFL are weak.

They should be kicking Brown out of the league for inciting violence from his own players.

Sour grapes i feel. It was a late hit but it was hardly malicious. The thing that worries me now is when we play hudds next week they are simply gonna be a bunch of dirty sh:thouses, in the full knowledge that, i'f last weeks game is anything to go by... that they wont get punished. And if they do get punished he will have even more to whinge and lose his dummy about.

Anybody now feel a few of the giants players have big red targets on them ready for other teams...they must really be thanking their coach for that. Robbo Mason and Fa'alogo must have done something really good to get such a target painted on them. Luke cos he's too small to look after himself and the other two for being his avengers.

I'm just a bit concerned that if Fa'alogo decides to target Lockers and Mickey Mac ain't on the pitch, then our lot are gonna look like a right bunch of fairies.



From what I've seen/heard of him the guy's an animal!

Let him, he'll get penalised and/or walk and we get territory up field.

If we keep our heads discipline wise then we'll put a similar score past them as we have too much for them out wide and we can handle their backs.

You're dead right , just thinking how desperately we need a headbusting player now Hock has gone, we really only have Mickey Mac who I feel could dish it out.

Didn't catch the full game last Sunday what happened with Mick and Mason?

Mason tried to punch him, and then got squared up to by Sam Tomkins

No it isn't. That is [uyour[/u definition. Not the official one according to the rules of the game. I could more justifiably say it [uisn't[/u reckless by definition of him being commited. Of course, none of us have the right to present either as fact as it is purely opinion. At least have the decency to not make things up and post them as fact. There is nowhere in the rule book (or indeed anywhere else) where a tackle of this nature is deemed 'reckless'. In fact the only thing the judiciary could comment on was the fact that O'Loughlin's shoulder caught Robinson's face was 'careless'. Not the tackle itself mind. They actually ruled that the contact was justifiable. How in God's name is that 'reckless'? He's entitled to smash Robinson to the ground with as much force as he is able to muster.




Then what are you arguing about? The referee's decision was that the tackle was a little late. That's all. Nothing else. Zip.




No it isn't. He isn't the one charged with deciding what is reckless or not. Neither should he be. That is the referee's job. What the hell fantasy world do you live in?



You can't acidentally punch someone! As for proving there was intent...er...that is exactly the point! If Nathan Brown announces to the world that he intends (see that word? Look it up and you'll find that it has the same derivative as intent!

) to exact retribution, the burdon of proof has been removed. It's an admission. Or is that another word you don't understand?



I know you're struggling with the intricasies of the English language but that is how you illustrate an inconsistancy. Comparing and contrasting what you said to the actual thing you were supposed to be defending. Do keep up.



I'll ask you again, who decides what is late? Give me your definition of what constitutes late and also how you would prevent players offloading the ball prior to every tackle, even if it goes to the floor, knowing it would result in a penalty for his team (according to your rule all late tackles would be illegal regardless of intent, commitment to the tackle etc.) and also resulting in a ban for the opposition player?




No, I don't want bans handing out for every little thing at all. It's you who is advocating the bans. In fact please quote where I said I wanted bans at all. The only thing I have done is point out the hypocrisy of bleating about the tough stuff and then advocating that your own players do it in retribution.




Again, please feel free to quote where I said this. Or are you now resorting to putting words in my mouth as your argument has more holes than a swiss cheese!



Sorry but that isn't even English.




In fact the same can be said for any aspect of the game. Or do you think players only get injured as a result of this particular aspect of the game?



And this is why we have penalties, putting on report and ultimately the judiciary. Your point is?



Not the opinion of the referee or any of the officials at the game. Neither the judiciary. Remind me again why you are the arbiter of what is reckless and what is not as I don't remember entering a parallel universe where you had been appointed. Or shall we actually tell it like it is and state that you are once again stating your opinion and arguing it as fact?



First of all who are you to decide that his primary concern wasn't to play within the rules of the game? Are you privvy to information the rest of us aren't? Are you a personal friend of his or something? Please share this information and insight. I'm sure it would be most illuminating. Or are you once again stating your opinion as fact? Let me guess....

Secondly, there you go again with the "reckless by definition". No it isn't. Only in your opinion.



And what is it I don't understand again? As far as I can see there has been nothing in your argument thus far that has been in any way complex.



Why? Unless you're suggesting vigilantism is the correct response to anything you don't like then one does not follow the other at all. I have no problem with the rough stuff as such, and the inconsistancies of the judiciary aside,am quite satisfied that we have the mechanisms in place to deal with them. Where we differ is that you feel that you should be the one that decides what constitutes illegal play. I don't.




Well actually you're advocating that [uas long as you are the one that gets to decide.[/u That's an entirely different thing.



Again, well done for putting words in my mouth. Where have I ever posted this view. My only viewpoint here is that [uin this particular instance[/u the correct punishment was given on the day. Brown's bleating and threats was soley concerned with the fact that he thought it was worth an 8 week ban and that he should be the one who gets to decide this. His subsequent comments were a poor effort to rationalise his ridiculous dummy spit. Had they not been he would have complained to the board or media when his own player escaped a ban last season. Maybe he could even have implemented the ban himself as it was entirely in his power to do so. Does he only feel this strongly when it's another team's player? Surely not!

Wow what a reply to them all

I'm finding it quite hilarious watching the Hudds fans flounder on this topic, especially durham giant, its not the same when youre on somebody elses board is it?? I made all these points on the hudds board and was called every name under the sun but as soon as I gave some back I got banned!


Regarding the whole situation, You are wasting your breath trying to even explain it to the Hudds fans as they will simply not see sense. you cannot defend Nathan Browns actions in the last few days and he is far luckier escaping punishment than O'loughlin was.


The tackle was deemed by the referee and TJ to be a little late, I thought he was commited, the judiciary said it was commited but slightly high, either way a caution should end the situation, but not in Browns eyes he said it warranted a ban of up to 2 months, this is a laughable statement and he can gloss it over as much as he wants, he is bitter and angry about the tackle and is doing his best to create a bigger picture to detract from the fact that he spat the dummy out about 1 tackle.


How anybody can compare a late, high tackle to condoning violence from your enforcers is beyond me!!

Our friend from overt' Pennines looks like he needs some help with definitions so......

reckless

• adjective =#BF0040without thought or care for the consequences of an action.



careless

• adjective 1 =#BF0040not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or mistakes


Keywords are "WITHOUT" and "NOT GIVING SUFFICIENT" - to make things very simple for our friend smokey without means none, zero, nil, nada etc and not giving sufficient means didn't do enough.

The Judiciary said careless, ...........not reckless, shameless or any other bloody-less, just careless.

Now nobhead Brown on the other hand has made his comments without thought or care for the consequences of his action, which is a bit reckless of him



You do have to worry about these peoples grasp of the English language especially when they refer to a Barm-cake as a Teacake (BTW for our trans-Pennine readers a Teacake has Currants in it, which tend to not work so well with chips babbysyed & peawet or bacon & egg as fillings)

slightly O/T: ........Lol at the profanity filter which edits out "barm-cake" (without the hyphen) as ""



HTH

Now that was late on Slater by Matai

Dont be silly. As Mr Brown has rightfully told us ruff Brits, that sort of thing does not happen in Aus.....EVER.

Just ask Mr Hopoate