Wane says, "I don't just mean the Sa incident". So he clearly has other things on his mind. It would be interesting to see how Wane's apparent paranoia is reflected in his players. I don't get the impression he is a master psychologist like Tony Smith so it could have unintended consequences.

Is that what happened with Amos Roberts?

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

This topic is about referees doing more to protect Sam. Not quite sure how referees are to protect Sam in games he isn't playing in?

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

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

No one else.

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.

Just thinking that myself



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

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?

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.

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

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