Wane* is talking about protection for Sam Tomkins. If what is happening to Sam, is happening to other players throughout the league then it doesn't make it acceptable. What Wane is doing foremost is looking to protect his player.



Regardless of what goes in on in all games, in the games involving Sam, Wane has noticed that foul play is occuring quite frequently against his star player.

And what you, for no obvious reason, fail to see is that frequency is a relative concept

Actually an intelligent piece of PR by Wane this. Places the refs in an awkward position now re: any vigorous tackle on Sam. Could lead to a lot more penalties awarded Wigan's way. It's really just a coach trying to give his team every advantage he possibly can. Fair play to him.



BTW, a significant factor of Burrow being "hit high" is that alot of the time he just loses his footing when trying to step defenders and actually falls into arms that are at a perfectly acceptable height. It's not the defenders' problem that Rob is of small stature & sometimes loses his footing. But a penalty often arises.

Suggesting someone can learn a lesson from someone else implies they aren't doing the thing you're suggesting they can learn. Therefore it doesn't matter whether you use the word 'if', you're still insinuating that the lesson needs to be learned. That was my objection to what you wrote.



And there's no need to be defensive. It can't be helped if the most obvious example of Tomkins brushing off a tackle and not complaining was after a high shot from a Leeds player.

But he has no way of knowing if that is normal right across the league just as you don't.

As an example I have seen Micheal Dobson battered during some games.

It happens but Wane isn't interested in all that apparently he just wants little Sam protected.

You seem to have a similar opinion.

As Smokey rightly says (God I can't belive I have just said that!!) it is all relative which is why I said this.

No, 'if' by its definition states that the statement is uncertain. I was simply stating 'if' Tomkins complains then he would be better placed learning from Burrow who hasn't. 'if' he hasn't and won't then he doesn't. It is the reason 'if' was included.



And my issue with your use of Ablett as an example, was less to do with him being a Leeds player and more the nonsensical argument of stating Tompkins needs protecting from players doing something which happened once, wasn't that bad, and was two years ago

It was a bad one though. 3 match bans don't get handed out for nothing these days. Just because it's a Leeds player doesn't mean it was less serious than from any other player.



And I didn't state that Tomkins needs protecting. I was using it as an example of him brushing off a big tackle. I don't think he needs protecting, he's perfectly capable of looking after himself.



If you're just too sensitive to take any mention of a Leeds player doing anything wrong, there's a clip on youtube of Tomkins getting a big hit off Jason Baitieri and giving him a big old smile as he's getting up. That demonstrates the point without threatening to impair your rose tinted view of Leeds.

Care to explain?



You saying he's not Wigan's big danger player? That opposition players don't try and smash or hurt whenever they get hold of him? That he doesn't 'brush himself off' and get on with it pretty much every time?



Which part of this is incorrect?



You are right when you say it's relative, and relatively speaking Sam takes more shots and rough/dirty treatment per tackle than the majority of players. That's not to say he's not the only one who gets treatment.



Anyway, your whole post was flawed. Sam has made no complaint, not in the press and very rarely in games. That you're now desperately citing semantics when the meaning of your statement is embarrassingly clear is merely digging your little hole deeper.





Ps: no, it's his height. Yes, at times fatigue leads to a lazy tackle but when the player in question is 5 foot & a fart tall and nippy, he will inevitably receive more high shots than most. He also often tries to duck tackles. That you're arguing otherwise is indicative of your usual level of reason: flawed and delusional.

It has nothing to do with him being a Leeds player, its that it wasn't that bad and was two years ago, I'd agree he can and always has looked like he can protect himself, if I were him I'd be seething that Wane had singled me as needing it

There was nothing in the Sa tackle. Wigan fans are living in their own world.



Sam gets more than enough protection. The problem is not that it's open slather on him, it's that he gets away with murder.

Its the part where you use 'THE' instead of 'A'. Tomkins is 'A' dangerman for Wigan, there are others, he is 'A' playmaker in SL, there are plenty others, he is 'ONE' of the players who will be targetted, there are others, to say otherwise is hyperbolic. Tomkins is a good player, a quality player, some would say the best in SL. He isnt, however, that much better than everyone else in SL that teams prepare differently for him, or treat him differently, or single him out differently to how they would players of a similar ilk. To say they do is hyperbolic.

I dont think that is anywhere near the truth, I would say 90% of SL props take more shots and more rough/dirty treatment per tackle than Tomkins.

The fact you even admit you need to ignore part of what i put so you can invent your own little straw man to argue against is what is embarrasing.



Nowhere in the rules does it state players are allowed to tackle around the head if a player is a bit smaller, a bit quicker, or you are tired/lazy. Burrow gets hit around the head because players arent good enough/fit enough to deal with his size/speed.

I may be in a minority, but I'm all in favour of protecting any and all playmakers from foul play. Its not unique to Tomkins, its being going on since RL began. My first Leeds hero, John Holmes, was regularly subjected to tackles that the so-called 'hard men' would never have tried on big forwards - late, high shots with the sole intention of trying to initimidate the playmaker out of the game.



The rules already exist to 'protect' the likes of Tomkins, the question is are refs too lenient on players during games, and likewise the judiciary afterwards. I have no problem in Wane or Brown raising that issue if they believe it to be the case.



And by the way, one of the previous Leeds coaches (can't remember if it was Smith or McClennan) made similar noises about Burrow being hit high too often as well.