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.

Maybe this is his plan? Maybe he wants the players to go after Tomkins even more, thus changing their gameplan and allowing Wigan to create a gameplan that sees the opposition rush out for Tomkins?

He could be working the media.

Isn't is enough that the RFL have already sanctioned "Sam's Kicking Zone" allowing him to kick out at opposition when the tackle has been completed without prosecution ?

Do we now need "Sam's Tackling Zone" so players can only perform a 2 handed touch on him with the referee calling the tackle based on whether or not Wigan are losing?

I'm sure the Southern Hemisphere will fully endorse these rules for the Autumn internationals too.

The problem is that the refs appear to think the same. Good players will always be a target but as in the game against Catalans, the officials seemed to deliberately ignore an attack to Sam's head.

Having looked at that challenge from the angle behind the sticks, the most dramatic thing about it is the other Catalans player who gets sent flying - and who Tomkins then hits. I agree with the RFL's ruling that there was no raised arm, that the arm deflected off the ball and that there should be no further case to answer. Unfortunately it seems the Paranoids of Parbold will never accept that every challenge on Tomkins isn't simply a deliberate attempt to maim.

Very good points.

I,m sure Tomkins is getting embarrased with it all. Especiallly after reading the Wigan Evening Mail today, Wane has been quoted as saying that he sees his Sam as like a son and if he sees hits on him, its like hitting one of his kids.

Wigan had protection from relegation a few seasons back, now they want player protection, whatever next.