Is anyone really suprised?

It's no suprise to me that wigan wasted no time in adopting this tactic, as they have shown throughout their dark history they will do anything to achieve victory, even if it means damaging the game and the very players that play in it.

You can see the glee spread across mcguires face every time a players executes this tackle correctly and the opposition player is injured.

Of course we are only complaining about this because it's wigan and we are bitter. Yes, that's right, if it was a smaller team like St Helens no one would care. It's just because it's wigan

Goodness me you're a bitter little individual aren't you?

I'm glad you've revealed Michael Maguire's (note the spelling) personal satisfaction at seeing players who play the sport he's been involved with for over 20 years injured.

It's because it's wigan.

And do you honestly take my post seriously?

Maguires own career was cut short because of injury. I bet he laughed himself silly at that one.

I counted numerous times on Friday Hull players coming in around the legs as third man in but then there's only meant to be us doing it.

It's a non event.

No, the argument I addressed was that Wigan 'only' injured 3 players using this tactic therefore it is ok. Not whatever you are retrospectively attempting to change it to now to save face.

Your premise here, is wrong. This is factually correct. Nobody has argued any different, nor has anyone complained about a completely legal tackle. this is completely irrellevant to the premise you have presented and is only put here as a poor attempt to confuse.If a player is not in control of the way they are completing tackles, then they shouldnt be on the field. 'its just an accident we keep making in the same way repeatedly' isnt a defence.

No the intent is fact. It is a physical impossibility to complete a tackle in that way accidently. This would only be true of you didnt know what the word tactic meant. and if they did, it would be a tactic. And it certainly wouldnt be a baseless accusation it would be a self-evident fact. Maybe if you checked up on the meaning of the word tactic you could save yourself this confusion?You havent presented any evidence whatsoever. Nor have you managed to even show what i changed my tune from (im guessing here you were attempting to misrepresent me as saying this was a tactic Wigan used all the time, then checked back and found I was quite consistent and thought you would try and slip it in anyway and hope nobody noticed?).

you have really struggled with basic comprehension here and im not sure why. Injuries happen, for a myriad of reasons. When something causes a large amount of injuries it can be defined as unsafe. When an action is a deliberate action with preferable end it is a tactic. In no way, shape or form could anybody with any sense at all construe that as all injuries follow unsafe purposeful actions therefor most if not all injuries are intentional. It is complete nonsense from somebody who has clearly lost the argument and is no trying to simply confuse to cover it up.

Most do yes. Laying on and giving away three penalties described by the referee as "three of the most obvious textbook penalties" for laying on and offside during the last three minutes of a half to try and waste time and survive to half time, would also be described as employing an illegal tactic. How on earth have you applied my very specific description of one specific tactic to any and all situations that could possibly result in an injury? What made you think that was a good idea? Can I ask, did your argument here really make sense in your head? did you really think it addressed anything I said?

So that would be a totally fabricated (by you) injury then as Clarkson continued to play after the incident. HTH

Look, you have resorted to outright lying now and it will make you look very silly as it is so easy to, you know, read what people have said on previous pages. You are making yourself look like you are on a one man mission against Wigan. Sad. But anyway, for the record, Jeff The God of Biscuits responded to the fact that 3 players had been injured by this so-called tactic and at no point did he imply that it was ok because it was only 3 players; it was clear that he was dismissing your claim because 3 injured players does not a tactic make. He went on to say "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?" which clearly sets out the argument that if Wigan were intending to injure players with a technique they employ up to 100 times a match, we would have seen more injuries. Since there has been only 3, the technique is clearly not one designed to injure players.


In what way? "You're wrong" is hardly a compelling argument, yet it's the second time you've used it. To be safe is to be free from injury or risk of injury, therefore an action that causes injury must by definition be unsafe. Denying this really is an untenable position, but I imagine you feel compelled to deny it because to admit it would bring your house of cards argument fluttering down.


You are the one insisting these tackles were illegal because players were allegedly intentionally injured. I'm pointing out that a) injuries follow legal as well as illegal tackles and b) not all illegal tackles are intentional as you claim. Those two facts cast doubt over the claim that these 3 incidents were part of a broad tactic employed by Wigan to injure players. But hang on, you said these three particular tackles were intended to injure, and yet now you seem to be admitting they could have been mistakes. So which is it, because if they were mistakes, how could they be part of a tactic?


That's a rather bold claim, and another one I fear will be left presented as a self evident fact. You have no way of knowing what the players intended, unless you want to go back to the argument that any action by a player is "purposeful" and therefore intentional.


I don't need to present evidence, since I'm not the one making a claim. The burden of proof lies with you, and so far you all have shown is that 3 players were injured, and not all of them from illegal tackles. You can repeat you assertion (because that is all it is) ad nausium, but it doesn't prove anything.


You were the one who claimed a tackle was a purposeful action and that therefore an injury resulting from that tackle must be intentional. Obviously you hadn't the foresight to see how silly a position that was as it would mean almost every injury was illegally caused, and of course, you only want it to apply to this specific team.


If you dropped the petulance from your posts you'd have abetter chance of convincing me I'm communicating with another grown-up. As for the above example, it's much more plausible that that was a tactic employed towards the end of a game (though of course without knowing the players intentions--which you don't--it could simply be a case of ill-discipline rather than a concerted effort) but that is hugely different from a tackling technique which is used in every game and which has caused 3 injuries all season being touted as an intentional injury tactic. That's just plain fantasy on your part, with nothing other than opinion to back it up.

As they will. It is telling that are you are unable to show us this, instead you simply hope people dont actually read it and believe you instead.


House!Really? his quote is here? I think it is very clear that his focus is on the number of players injured, that it wasnt a lot and the clear inference was regarding the danger of said tactic not its prevalence (you know, what i argued against) There is no mention whatsoever of the amount of times the situation occurred, only mention of the amount of players injured by it. You trying to change the meaning now to try and score a cheap point and perpetuate your Wigan paranoia is laughabe.
And again you attempt to conflate this specific tackle, with all tackles. I can only point out to you what has been said before in the hope you stop trying to talk yourself in a circle and bring this point about yet again.
It is if you are simply, factually incorrect. because you have been simply, factually, incorrect. Twice.No it isnt. It is for the risk to be 'acceptable'. Nothing is completely free of risk. There is risk inherent to everything. only if you dont understand the 'safe' is a relative concept. Or because you know it to be easily and provably wrong and you needed this caveat to pre-empt the fact you knew, as I did, to be simply and provably wrong.

No, again, most of this thread seems to consist of you reading something, getting it completely wrong, me pointing this out, then you getting all uppity about something completely different to what I had said. Surely you dont struggle with comprehension this much?

What I said was these tackles were illegal and players have been injured. I also said that these tackles are intentional actions, they arent accidents. They arent illegal because players were intentionally injured, they are illegal because of the risk of injury and they are intentional actions.Two seperate things.
They do, nobody has disputed this. But it isnt relevant. The fact injuries occur for other reasons doesnt in any way mitigate or diminish the fact that injuries were suffered on these occasions for one particular reason.

This is also true, and again nobody has disputed it, but again it isnt relevant. The fact some illegal tackles arent intentional doesnt mean that these three specific actions werent intentional.


No they dont. They arent even relevant. Where have I said they could be a mistake?

I do know none of them tripped and just 'accidently' fell into the knee of a player held up in the tackle and just coincidentally hit them with their shoulder and then wrapped their legs up and completed the tackle by pure chance. 3 Times.

Do you even read what YOU write? never mind you, do you know even what you are putting? We will ignore you attempting to conflate two separate paragraphs and address only one to cover up for the fact you couldnt address it. As you say, its so easy to, you know, read what people have put on previous pages. But we can stick with this laughable nonsense from you for a while. Its actually a little funny.

So which one was it? Have you presented evidence? or Dont you need to?

It is also telling that you have still failed to show what this 'change' in argument has been.

Do you really think that this logical falllacy is a good argument? This is barely SATS test level.

To put it in terms you may understand.

If an action is deliberate, and the purpose of that action is to increase the risk of injury and that action is illegal. That action is a deliberate illegal action to cause injury,

That doesnt mean all tackles are deliberate actions, all tackles which cause injuries are deliberate actions, all injuries are the result of deliberate actions, all tackles which cause injuries are illegal actions, all injuries are caused by deliberate illegal actions or whatever other nonsense you can think of which a 7 year old would see through.

I'd pretty much given up adult debate when you stooped to the 'Wigan Paranoia' standpoint. I never said they were exactly the same, This is just another nonsense argument from you. I just said both were illegal tactics.

More likely that you gave up on this debate when it became clear you were wrong and were defending an untenable position. No evidence of a Wigan tactic, no evidence of intentions, just angry accusations with a healthy dose of teenage petulance thrown in the mix. You know more about SATs than I do son, I'm 32. Maybe that's apparent from the way we conduct ourselves. Can you see the difference? Your childish insults aren't doing you any favours mate. Stop the petty squabbling and debate.

I'll ask again for some evidence of intent to injure, because it simply must exist for you to have formed such a solid opinion, right?

You seem to be saying that you know for a fact that none of the players involved in the three tackles accidentally completed the tackle in a way that caused or was part of a cause of injury, but yet again this is an opinion instead of fact. I could just as easily say I know for a fact that they did. These are just assertions, and without anything to support them they are worthless.

Your argument is based on 3 tackles which you claim is evidence of a tactic, yet any such tactic to intentionally injure opposition players would surely have produced far more evidence. It's more plausible that these injuries were accidental, and you've admitted not all illegal tackles are intentional, but maintain that these 3 were (even though they weren't all illegal, hey), yet you have failed to demonstrate intent over accident. Out of interest, can you show me the disciplinary charges for these tackles?

Anyway...the so-called 'cannonball' tackle has been identified as a safety issue in the NRL - this being the third man in hitting the tackled player around the knees. As far as I'm aware, there haven't been many injuries caused by it, but its recognised as potentially dangerous and therefore to be penalised.

Again, your attempt to rephrase what has been said so it fits with what you would like to argue rather than what is actually there is quite silly.

No, no no no no, it doesnt exist. Nobody would or could do this. The only time it could happen is if a Wigan player accidently tripped and just fell into that position and somehow executed that tackle in that way be sheer chance. Nobody has ever intended to do it, its all just a massive coincidence and anyone who says different is part of a massive conspiracy to defame Wigan.

Now that simply [imust [/ibe embarrassing. I think you've just exposed yourself as some kind of WUM or troll there mate. But if it isn't clear from that, let me just remind you that you've already admitted that players can be injured accidentally, you just refuse to accept that players can be injured accidentally against Wigan. Obsessed!

And that second post certainly wasnt sarcastic.