Fair enough.

You obviously didn't read my post on that thread. I was only wishing the lad well.
Shame you can't see past your blinkers and do the same.

I agree with this. But feel he has been awful for two years previously.

I'd go a bit further and say he hasn't had a consistently good season since he got called up to the England squad in 2013. He seemed to lose that edge and niggle he had to his game and it's nice to see him recover it.

I'm afraid that won't wash with anyone. Especially when I watched the Wigan trainer give him a couple of pills (which I can only assume to be painkillers) to try and keep him on the pitch.

I'll say it again, the tackle was poor and will be rightly punished, but that was poor form from Wigan to try and get him out there given the injury that he has sustained. Losing an interchange doesn't justify it.

It doesnt even make sense either, because even if both Gildarts off, and on subsitutions were free, his second off substitution wasn't. So they didn't gain a sub

I think it was that if he didnt put him back straight after half time then he couldnt bring him on later

I agree. Couldn't believe it when he came back on. Player welfare is more important than a sub.

That's only for the concussion protocol isn't it.

Wigan needed to bring him back on within 15mins to negate the original substitution as an injury caused by foul play. But prior to bringing Gildart back on, all that had happened was that they had made a normal substition. They brought him back on at half time and negated it but then immediately made a chargeable one.

The only 'gain' possible was an extra rotation i.e they brought player A on for Gildart, subbed player A off for Gildart and subbed player B on for Gildart, but this happened either side of half time and these 3 substitutions were within about 2mins playing time of each other.

It's been posted on the other board that Gildart himself thought he may be able to continue later in the game. That's why he came back on when he did. It soon became apparent that he couldn't. Given the seriousness of the injury that's hardly surprising. However, with back injuries it's not always immediately apparent as a bad spasm, for example, can be debilitating when it first strikes but can clear within a relatively short space of time. If the club were guilty of anything it was of not erring on the side of caution. However I think to suggest anything further is stretching it a bit. The doctor will get the final say in all cases of this nature and to suggest he'd willfully and knowingly put a player's welfare at risk as is being suggested by some on here is bordering on libellous.

I totally agree that player welfare is paramount and I have no hesitation in saying that, knowing what they now know, I'm sure the medical staff wouldn't have given permission for him to return. Hindsight is, of course. 20/20!

Hmmm. A dangerous tackle that could risk severe injury to a players head and/or neck and yet no outrage from Phil Clarke.

And his Sky Sports column this week didn't mention the Westwood tackle or dangers of concussion.

Nowt from Angela Powers either of course it's nothing to do with her being a Wire fan.
All sarcasm etc aside we really shouldn't be surprised we knew nothing would be said.

No mention of the rugby gods visiting Westerman either, out with a shoulder injury I think. Maybe caused by his "non"- shoulder charge that also injured Golding?

No outrage from Phil Clarke at the latest crusher tackle.