anyone with any sense would tackle around the legs because you vant run without them, thats what kids get taught. as long as wigan do the tackle and the ref is okay with it its fair but when its wrong like lima he was rightfully sin binned. if everyone got there own way it would be turned from tackle to tag rugby with velcrow strips so you dont hurt anyone.

Lock and leg 3 man tackles are good tactical practice when performed in the right manner. If I remember correctly the solomona tackle was only 2 man and certainly ok as he was making strides forward. The only issue is if the standing leg is attacked to cause injury. Really don't know what the fuss is.

The so-called tactic is "tackling" nothing more. This Wigan conspiracy theory is not only tiring, it's embarrassing for those who spout it. Excuses excuses.

Who mentioned making something legal? The counter-argument being made to your tin pot theory is that Wigan don't employ a tactic, not that they should be allowed to employ an illegal tactic.


Rather than the statistics indicating that supposedly deliberate illegal tactics should be allowed because they have only injured 3 players, the fact that only 3 players have been injured indicates that Wigan are either a) not employing a tactic at all, or b) doing so very ineffectively.


Are Leeds deliberately employing dangerous tactics then? Or is it just when Wigan are involved that individual events can be used to supposedly demonstrate a general trend?

No, it isnt
It also doesnt exist, it is boring and embarrassing for those who try and hide behind it.

I did, you quoted it.Then you're argument is either niave or more simply, wrong.
Or C) not done all that frequently.
In that instance yes.

This is getting REALLY boring now

Exactly. You mentioned it, not those whom you are arguing against. You are essentially arguing against a non-existent position, to wit, that Wigan's "illegal tactics" should be made legal on the basis that only 3 people have been injured. The actual argument being made was that Wigan aren't employing illegal tactics and the low number of injuries caused by Wigan was invoked to support that argument. What you seem to be doing is constructing a straw-man (i.e. 'Illegal tackles should be made legal because hardly anyone has been injured') because it is easier knock down than the actual argument that Wigan do not intentionally set out to injure players.


In your opinion. And if that is the extent of "argument" in favour of your opinion I'd say it's probably one without much merit. Maybe you'd like to expand on why you think I'm wrong, citing evidence of Wigan's intentions to injure players.


Hardly a tactic at all then eh? Certainly no more of a tactic than when other players get injured playing against other teams. Can you look beyond your bias for one second and consider the possibility that such an incredibly low number of injuries might just be accidental?

Which is why i applied that same 'low number of injuries' argument to a different situation, which highlighted how silly an argument it was. I honestly thought that would have been obvious.

The three tackles, which have been highlighted. Those are three examples where a tackle could have been completed in a much easier, safer and a controlled manner. There is no reason you would chose to complete a tackle in a more difficult, less controlled and unsafe manner other than to increase the potential for injury.

Well no, im not really sure how you could confuse 'a tactic rarely used' with 'not a tactic at all'. This seems very very basic comprehension. what? this sentence simply doesnt make sense. I saw them, I saw that you dont commit that tackle on accident. It is a purposeful action. It's a purposeful action to bend and drive and complete that tackle, there is no reason to complete the tackle in that manner other than to increase the potential for injury. You can complete that tackle in numerous other safe, controlled and legal ways. It isnt an accident to complete the tackle in that way.

But you didn't apply it at all, you completely changed the argument being made. The argument presented to you was that since only 3 injuries have occurred it follows that Wigan aren't setting out to intentionally injure players. Note that the crux of the argument is "Wigan do not intend to injure players" and not "Let's make dangerous tackles legal", yet you responded with "There's only been one broken jaw this season [uso let's legalise high tackles[/u". Now that response would only make sense if the people you were responding to wanted illegal tackles to be made legal on the basis of low injuries, wouldn't it? If you truly applied the first argument to your example it would go along the lines of "There's only been one broken jaw this season so players aren't intentionally trying to break jaws." I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are being purposefully disingenuous, because if it isn't it's a brand new level of stupidity.


If a player is injured then by definition something unsafe has occurred. However, it doesn't follow that a) a tackle preceding an injury was illegal, since players get injured through completely legal passes of play in which the supposed offender is not actually guilty of misconduct, or b) that the way the tackle was completed (i.e. unsafely) was "chosen" and the injury intentional. It is perfectly plausible for players to make mistakes, in so far as they intend to complete the tackle safely but do not. So whilst I would say that the cause of any injury is, by definition, unsafe, you will have to do more to demonstrate that all injuries occur through a choice to act unsafely and are therefore intentional. At the moment that is just an accusation on your part.


That intent is present is your opinion only, not fact. And even if you could somehow show intent it wouldn't indicate a tactic, just 3 players breaking the rules 3 separate times in one season. I'm sure I could show you 3 high tackles by a SL team, or 3 laying on offences by another, then probably 3 chicken wings by yet another, but none of which would demonstrate a team-wide tactic even if I could somehow demonstrate intent. The best I could do would be to throw a baseless accusation that the individuals involved intended it, and to assert that those supposed intended actions somehow proved the team itself was employing a tactic. Yeah, accusations and assertions, much like you have done. The fact that you change your tune to "a tactic that is hardly ever used" when you are presented with contradictory evidence seems to me to suggest that you are backtracking in order to make the facts fit to your preconceived conclusion of the situation rather than admit you might be wrong. The more plausible explanation is that Wigan aren't employing a tactic and that that is why it there are hardly any injuries from it.

Since injuries follow unsafe "purposeful action" does that make most, if not all, injuries in SL intentional, in your opinion? Is it also your opinion that all teams are employing illegal tactics, since the actions of their players which have caused injuries were, as you say, "purposeful actions"? I'm sure there must have been an injury or 3 this season, and that would clearly show a "tactic" according to your argument, wouldn't it? In fact, do you think there have been 3 or more injuries sustained in tackles against any other SL team in in the whole of 2011?

I dont like the tackle but it is legal & it is a good way that Wigan have found to slow the play the ball & hold control of the opposition. the only time it goes wrong or can be beaten is if the ball is slipped out then they are a man short in defence.
I would be OK with the tackle being outlawed but if that is to be done then the play the ball must be stricktly policed as in the NRL, no moving of the mark & made to play with the foot. If that is done there is no need to put three in the tackle as markers can get set if they are quick.