No, 'if' by its definition states that the statement is uncertain. I was simply stating 'if' Tomkins complains then he would be better placed learning from Burrow who hasn't. 'if' he hasn't and won't then he doesn't. It is the reason 'if' was included.

And my issue with your use of Ablett as an example, was less to do with him being a Leeds player and more the nonsensical argument of stating Tompkins needs protecting from players doing something which happened once, wasn't that bad, and was two years ago

It was a bad one though. 3 match bans don't get handed out for nothing these days. Just because it's a Leeds player doesn't mean it was less serious than from any other player.

And I didn't state that Tomkins needs protecting. I was using it as an example of him brushing off a big tackle. I don't think he needs protecting, he's perfectly capable of looking after himself.

If you're just too sensitive to take any mention of a Leeds player doing anything wrong, there's a clip on youtube of Tomkins getting a big hit off Jason Baitieri and giving him a big old smile as he's getting up. That demonstrates the point without threatening to impair your rose tinted view of Leeds.

Care to explain?

You saying he's not Wigan's big danger player? That opposition players don't try and smash or hurt whenever they get hold of him? That he doesn't 'brush himself off' and get on with it pretty much every time?

Which part of this is incorrect?

You are right when you say it's relative, and relatively speaking Sam takes more shots and rough/dirty treatment per tackle than the majority of players. That's not to say he's not the only one who gets treatment.

Anyway, your whole post was flawed. Sam has made no complaint, not in the press and very rarely in games. That you're now desperately citing semantics when the meaning of your statement is embarrassingly clear is merely digging your little hole deeper.


Ps: no, it's his height. Yes, at times fatigue leads to a lazy tackle but when the player in question is 5 foot & a fart tall and nippy, he will inevitably receive more high shots than most. He also often tries to duck tackles. That you're arguing otherwise is indicative of your usual level of reason: flawed and delusional.

It has nothing to do with him being a Leeds player, its that it wasn't that bad and was two years ago, I'd agree he can and always has looked like he can protect himself, if I were him I'd be seething that Wane had singled me as needing it

There was nothing in the Sa tackle. Wigan fans are living in their own world.

Sam gets more than enough protection. The problem is not that it's open slather on him, it's that he gets away with murder.

Its the part where you use 'THE' instead of 'A'. Tomkins is 'A' dangerman for Wigan, there are others, he is 'A' playmaker in SL, there are plenty others, he is 'ONE' of the players who will be targetted, there are others, to say otherwise is hyperbolic. Tomkins is a good player, a quality player, some would say the best in SL. He isnt, however, that much better than everyone else in SL that teams prepare differently for him, or treat him differently, or single him out differently to how they would players of a similar ilk. To say they do is hyperbolic.
I dont think that is anywhere near the truth, I would say 90% of SL props take more shots and more rough/dirty treatment per tackle than Tomkins.
The fact you even admit you need to ignore part of what i put so you can invent your own little straw man to argue against is what is embarrasing.

I may be in a minority, but I'm all in favour of protecting any and all playmakers from foul play. Its not unique to Tomkins, its being going on since RL began. My first Leeds hero, John Holmes, was regularly subjected to tackles that the so-called 'hard men' would never have tried on big forwards - late, high shots with the sole intention of trying to initimidate the playmaker out of the game.

The rules already exist to 'protect' the likes of Tomkins, the question is are refs too lenient on players during games, and likewise the judiciary afterwards. I have no problem in Wane or Brown raising that issue if they believe it to be the case.

And by the way, one of the previous Leeds coaches (can't remember if it was Smith or McClennan) made similar noises about Burrow being hit high too often as well.

You're wasting your breath mate, they just don't understand or don't want to understand anything that you have said.
The Wigan fans (& importantly Wane) see that Sam's protection is less than every other player in SL even though as you correctly pointed out they are not in any position to judge such from their limited viewing..

What a daft statement; if he'd limited his comment to the Sa tackle it would be acceptable, but he specifically states that he's *not* just talking about the Sa incident.

Leaving aside the irony of the Wigan coach asking for his own player to be protected from foul play, he's just put a big fat target on Tomkins' chest and set his own forwards up for a massive fall, just like Nathan Brown did last season - he said he'd use his 'enforcers' to protect his players, sent one on to do just that and if memory serves, he was promptly dismissed.

An error of judgement by Wane in my view - he's got this one wrong.

Im all for the protection of all players in the game. Foul play should be penalised.

I'd particularly like the league to focus on players who attack standing legs of held players, like young Sam has a bit iof a tendancy to do.

Why should Wane ask for protection of Dobson?

If you had engaged your brain before you had posted you would have seen the comment in the context it was meant.
Unfortunatly you seem not to have done and have now totally missed the point that was being made.

Does anyone have stats for the number of times Burrow has been penalised for high tackles ? It happens quite regularly .
Tomkins does not need protecting . Barely a tackle on him goes by already without him earning (milking) a penalty .

Maybe it is just that people have gotten so used to giving away penalties on every tackle on him that they are thinking that if there's gonna be a penalty it might as well be for something worth penalising .

Sorry but still dont see the point. I see that you think Dobson needs protecting the same as Sam does. But think that Wane should speak up for a Hull KR player. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think he's trying to say that we have no way of knowing whether Dobson gets any different treatment than Sam does and Wane has only spoken out about Sam when Dobson could indeed get similar or even worse treatment.