PLEASE LOGIN or REGISTER FOR FEWER ADS, MORE LIVE FEATURES & CLUB RELATED NEWS
GOOGLE REPORTS FOR THE PAST MONTH : Unique Users 115,772 Pageviews 5,467,188.
WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Board index RLFANS MAIN The Virtual Terrace "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

 

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:50 pm
goobervision Cheeky half-back
Cheeky half-back

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:55 am
Posts: 616
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

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:51 pm
tugglesf78 User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:45 pm
Posts: 3514
Location: The Barton Arms
Coventry Warrior! wrote:
What has that got to do with this topic? :lol:


Just thinking that myself :lol:

I was at that game myself. That must mean that i am guilty by association.
What's the rumpus, Tom?

Pemps wrote:
I can't confirm Bennett's exact words but I believe they were along the lines of "Strewth Ian, I wouldn't touch him with yours. He's a flammin' Gala".


Wigan Peer wrote:
I keep my bin under 30mph to avoid fines... :CURTAIN:



Please see for me if she's wearing a coat so warm
To keep her from the howlin' winds.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:56 pm
tugglesf78 User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:45 pm
Posts: 3514
Location: The Barton Arms
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?
What's the rumpus, Tom?

Pemps wrote:
I can't confirm Bennett's exact words but I believe they were along the lines of "Strewth Ian, I wouldn't touch him with yours. He's a flammin' Gala".


Wigan Peer wrote:
I keep my bin under 30mph to avoid fines... :CURTAIN:



Please see for me if she's wearing a coat so warm
To keep her from the howlin' winds.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:56 pm
SmokeyTA Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:59 pm
Posts: 19961
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.
http://www.pngnrlbid.com

bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:
Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.


vastman wrote:
My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:02 pm
SmokeyTA Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:59 pm
Posts: 19961
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
http://www.pngnrlbid.com

bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:
Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.


vastman wrote:
My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:08 pm
Coventry Bears User avatar
100% League Network
100% League Network

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:58 pm
Posts: 5793
Location: Coventry

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...
[b][color=#0000BF]SUPPORT • SPONSOR • PLAY • JOIN A MIDLANDS RUGBY LEAGUE SUCCESS STORY

http://www.coventrybears.co.uk[/color][/b]

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:10 pm
SmokeyTA Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:59 pm
Posts: 19961
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
http://www.pngnrlbid.com

bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:
Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.


vastman wrote:
My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.

Re: "Refs not protecting Sam" - Wane

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:12 pm
goobervision Cheeky half-back
Cheeky half-back

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:55 am
Posts: 616
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

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:18 pm
Cherry.Pie User avatar
Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:10 pm
Posts: 1764
Location: W19an

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

Post Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:27 pm
SmokeyTA Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:59 pm
Posts: 19961
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
Last edited by SmokeyTA on Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.pngnrlbid.com

bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:
Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.


vastman wrote:
My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gutterfax, Hessle rover, NickyKiss, t drednowts is cumin!, tenerifeRhino, The Yellow Giraffe, Tigerade, yossarian and 80 guests

Quick Reply

Subject: Message:
   

Return to The Virtual Terrace



All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, the RLSA (Rugby League Supporters Association) or the 100% League Network is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites, please email the author of this sub-site if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2014 RLFANS.COM