The fact is High tackles are illegal, tackling around the legs isn't, and even kids when they first learnt he game are taught to tackle around the legs. I certainly was when I first started playing the game. So why if and when Wigan do it, does it become some awful tactic that is done to deliberatley injure players? I really don't udnerstand. A couple of players have been injured, but then, Chris Tuson suffered a knee injury against Wakefield the other week, are Wigan fans trying to get Wakefield lynched for their deliberate attack of Chris Tusons knees? I saw the tackle and it was a tackle around the legs, but hey, that's Rugby, players tend to get injured. Why are Wigan being scapegoated for this? Is it because it's Wigan?

The fact the player's get injured is an unfortunate by product of playing a contact sport. Wigan do NOT go out to injure opponents, despite what many on here would have us believe. I don't like when player's get injured from any team, nor would any fan, but they are a simple fact of the sport we play. I haven't had the time to go through all the matches this year, but I bet the ratio of tackles round the legs to players being injured by Wigan is around about average, could possibly be a bit higher because we do have two going up top and one around the legs to control the ruck.

Tackling using the technique Wigan are using is, hence Jeff Lima being sin-binned for it.

No, never. I have never been taught, nor have taught, nor have spoken to anyone who was taught or has taught kids to attack the knee of a player held up in the tackle. Your premise is simply wrong.Well Wigan are being blamed for it because Wigan seem to do it more often. Nobody has defended any other player doing anything similar. Fans have been almost uniquely united in saying its something the game doesnt need.

Attacking the knee is a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent, throwing a shoulder in to the knee has no benefit to the defending team other than to potentially injure an opponent. It doesnt give control in the tackle, it doesnt slow the tackle completion, it doesnt help complete the tackle any more than the numerous other ways for a player to complete the tackle. It is a pointless, worthless, cowardly tactic which the game would benefit from getting rid of, not only that but it would lose nothing at all by doing so.

Players have other ways of completing the tackle, if they cannot do so, their duty is to not involve themselves in the tackle. It is wrong for them to complete the tackle regardless of the safety of the player they are tackling.

Lima was Sin Binned for tackling the standing leg, not tackling around the legs. The tackle deserved a sin binning, and if Wigan were employing that tactic in every game I would be disgusted. That tackle is a million years from the tackles Andy Coley put in this and last week.

I have yet to see this 'Throwing the shoulder into the knee' I have seen clasping the legs together to halt movent and birng the player to the ground. Now how a player is to get his should detatched from his arm so as not to fall on the attacking player I do not know, when I figure this out i'll email Michael Maguire.

Wigan have a policy of 2 men up high and the third finishing low. They do 100+ tackles this way per game and 3 players all year have been, unfortunatley, injured. I think that considering how we are 'Atatcking' everyone's legs, you'd think more players would come out with injuries in these tackles, wouldn't you? Or is it simply that we're tackling the legs and people are bigging that up to attack the knees?

Now as I have said, the Lima tackle against Leeds, was bad, and any further tackles like that should be dealt with accordingly [Also should be the bad chickenwing Lima did last night, which given his prior record may.should result in a ban]. I am a fair supporter and will call my team on anything they do wrong, but I see no wrong Wigan are doing in their tackling technique. It is sad that a couple of players have been injured in tackles involving our players. But I don't feel players are injured against Wigan more than any other team.

I apologise for the disjointedness [Even a word?] of my posts, but I am at work at the minute and have to deal with customer's while trying to type this!

If you wish to conflate two different things to try and confuse the matter feel free. On this thread everybody else has understood the difference bar a couple of Wigan fans who seem intent being confused.

Wigan dont complete 100+ tackles that way in a game, I have watched Wigan a fair few times and seen them complete that tackle small minority of times. I have seen the complete a tackle in a safe way numerous times, I have, disappointingly seen them injure three players by completing a tackle they complete 100+ times a game safely and legally, unsafely and illegally.

There are safe and unsafe ways of completing tackles. In a minority of times, Wigan players are choosing to complete the tackle in an unsafe way. They have no need to and should be punished when they do so. Fact is Wigan are a skillful bunch of players and a good team, if in three of four games they gave away two penalties for this type of tackle, they would simply adapt and get rid of it.


What annoyed me more was the weak refereeing that saw Wigan give away 3 penalties whilst defending their line within 2minutes which wasted time and left Hull unable to complete a set of 6 which they had earned. I dont blame Wigan for that, it was intelligent play by them, if the referee isnt going to punish them then they should do it, its clever. It is however weak refereeing which rewards that type of professionalism.

I felt someone should have been sin binned TBH, it was pathetic time wasting and frustrated me as a fan. I didn't feel the Turner try was a try, but it was our just desserts for our behaviour in the closing minutes of that half.

Are you saying the tackles Coley did on Moa & Solomona were the same tackle Lima did at Leeds. I really don't. As the tackles from Coley were simply wrapping up the legs and taking the man down, whereas Limas was a deliberate attack on a stationary player.

Wigan complete at least 80% of their tackles in that way, if they are dominating the game. The best example of this was against crusaders away, where we commited mostly every tackle in the same way. I do not recall any Crusaders player being injured that way. Likewise against Saints this technique was employed, but yet no Saints players came out with any injuries. Apart from Michael Shenton, who actually hurt his Knee/Ankle falling awkwardly in a tackle.

In a minority of times, every team complete tackles in an unsafe way, but the crux of my problem is Wigan always seem to be singled out for this. More than any other team. Now i'm not saying Wigan never perform illegal tackles [Just look at some of Joel Tomkins' from last night] But I don't feel that our policy of 'Tackling around the legs' should brand us as beint thugs and going out to hurt players. Nobody goes into a game to hurt a player, at least not all the time, but yet Wigan are more often than not, perceived to be a gang of thugs intent on snapping bones and tearing ligaments, which I feel is unfair to our great club.

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 so let's legalise high tackles". 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?