Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:50 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Eye, eye can we use Gouger Hock as an example of this.

Well you could, but the problem there is that the player he "gouged" went to the RFL to defend Hock. If you saw the incident it wasn't clear it was intentional.

But don't let that stop you demonising Hock.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:51 pm  

Coventry Warrior! wrote:

What has that got to do with this topic?

Just thinking that myself

I was at that game myself. That must mean that i am guilty by association.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:56 pm  

I tell you what.

The VT really is a laughable place to be when a Wigan related topic is posted.

Reasonable posters turn into holier than now drama queens.

Why do we stir such a reaction?

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:56 pm  

Coventry Warrior! wrote:

Not a relative measure at all. Wane is quite clearly asking for more protection of Sam Tomkins.

No one else.

it is either A)
So he wants more protection for Sam Tomkins over and above everyone else which is laughable,

Or B)he thinks that Precious Sammy gets less protection than everyone else, which according to your logic, he, nor you, could comment on without seeing every other game everyone else played in because it is a relative measure.

You clearly don't think it's option B, so we are left with the conclusion, you, along with wane, laughably think Precious Sammy needs special protection over and above everyone else.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:02 pm  

goobervision wrote:

Well you could, but the problem there is that the player he "gouged" went to the RFL to defend Hock. If you saw the incident it wasn't clear it was intentional.

But don't let that stop you demonising Hock.

Hock was charged with and found guilty of gouging, he is, by any definition a gouger

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:08 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

it is either A)
So he wants more protection for Sam Tomkins over and above everyone else which is laughable,

Or B)he thinks that Precious Sammy gets less protection than everyone else, which according to your logic, he, nor you, could comment on without seeing every other game everyone else played in because it is a relative measure.

You clearly don't think it's option B, so we are left with the conclusion, you, along with wane, laughably think Precious Sammy needs special protection over and above everyone else.

Yep option A sounds good. Got to do what we can to keep the best player in Super League...

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:10 pm  

Coventry Warrior! wrote:

Yep option A sounds good. Got to do what we can to keep the best player in Super League...

If he is the best RL player in SL he doesn't need special protection, if he is too soft to play like everyone else, he wouldn't be any loss

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:12 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Because it is quite clearly a relative measure. Unless wane was arguing precious little sammy needed special treatment from referees

I don't think he is asking for special treatment. Just fair treatment, there are people in this thread saying that it's right he should be targeted more due to the threat. Targeted for fair tackles, yes. For foul play, no. Unfortunately the more recent tactic that has been played against Wigan seems to be more on the side of foul play than fair play.

Quotes like this on the Wigan board highlight some fans views:

TheAbbot wrote:

I remember all the times he held players down and won penalties for it. What goes around......... I hope one day he toddles off to play Union, but not until someone breaks a part of his face.

or the ever anti-Wigan "Saddo"

Saddened! wrote:

It's an utterly bizarre statement to come out with and you have to wonder about his suitability to be a Super League coach when he's basically a thug himself.

Wigan are the most aggressive team in Super League and by far the most likely to commit serious foul play, particularly with the attacking of the standing legs they do and are coached to do.

Tomkins doesn't come in for special attention IMO, I can't think of a bad shot on him since he was KO'd by Raynor the other year. For a coach of a side containing Gareth Hock to suggest his side are being bullied is absolutely ridiculous.

or

Judder Man wrote:

Wasn,t Mr Wane on wigans staff roll when Terry Newton targeted and smashed Sean Longs jaw to pieces. Perhaps Mr Wane didn,t think much about that one and turned the other cheek so to speak.
Coming from a full back position Tomkins will always be targeted like any other player in that position who is an attacking threat.

So it's OK to commit foul play on Tomkins and Wigan are thugs.... Except if people like Saddo looked at Wigan's games, there are very few if any Standing Leg tackles (when was the last disciplinary for this?). Judder is making a connection to Wane being somewhere in the Wigan payroll to a tackle that probably wouldn't have caused much damage but for Long's own player running into the back of him at the same time as Newton make contact and then that there's some kind of behaviour link between Wane -> Newton -> Tomkins OK to target?

I'm surprised at the level of anti-Tomkins/Wigan drivel spouted as a result of this. If any coach is making this kind of comment just maybe it's worth a little look rather than rabid drivel?

Burrow get's caught a fair few high, he is small and fast so wrong foots players often. Refs haven't been slow to blow the whistle and I think that he suffer from foul (mostly accidental) play and should be protected. Roby I could argue falls in a similar small stature (but not as small), but doesn't step as much or have the same turn of pace, oddly he doesn't seem to get the same volume of penalties against him.

Sam at 5ft 11in, isn't small. However he seems to get at least 2 or 3 high tackles a game, and yet players like Finch who probably get tackled more don't get the same quantity of high tackles relative to carries. Do other full backs have the same foul to carry ratio I wonder? What the average and does Sam stand out as an exception, if so then just maybe Wane as a point.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:18 pm  

I would hazard a guess that Wane's comments were made with the Sa tackle in mind. Basically it was a dangerous tackle that could have caused serious injury, was quite clearly high. He was let off because although Sa hit him high he caught him around the shoulder first. The RFL let players off for any high tackle offence that hits the shoulder first yet it's incredibly easy to target a player and get in a deliberate high shot that won't get further action taken simply by making sure you get them around the shoulder before moving your arm into their face.

I assume the fact that Sa's tackle was dangerous but received no further punishment is what has annoyed Wane and led to what he's said in the interview.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane : Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:27 pm  

Ref's have been embarrassing in their refereeing of high shots on burrow, I have seen Burrow take two or three head shots in a game which had it been on any other player on the field would have seen a red, Burrow's skills aren't any excuse for head high shots. He has suffered numerous concussions but Burrow picks himself up dusts himself off and carries on with not a word.

If Tomkins can learn a lesson from nim in that respect he will be better for it, if he starts looking for excuses he is gone away.

I'f someone told Burrow he needed special protection it would likely be them looking for the ref to help them out, ask Lauaki and Thackray, Burrow takes responsibility for himself, he doesn't take a backward step and doesn't look for protection from anyone

Maybe he is just braver than Tomkins, it would be a sad day if that quality was removed from the game.


I'd also think Wigan are on pretty dodgy ground complaining at people wanting to see Tomkins hurt