What amazes me is the one eyed view of the world, it's not even difficult to find, here's a few with a simple google. Warrington v Salford, 2015 www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... th-8600986 Chase and Ferris, 2015 www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7251046 Isaac Luke, Aus v NZ, 2011 www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 55286.html Hull v Saints, 2013 www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... ns-3571663

What amazes me is the one eyed view of the world, it's not even difficult to find, here's a few with a simple google. Warrington v Salford, 2015 www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... th-8600986 Chase and Ferris, 2015 www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/ ... -1-7251046 Isaac Luke, Aus v NZ, 2011 www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 55286.html Hull v Saints, 2013 www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... ns-3571663

A lot of Wigan fans won,t accept any liabilities because most of them are living in Wanes World, the fact that the birthplace of the cannonball in super league belongs to Wigan and Wanes promotion of thuggery play are entities difficult to sweep under the carpet.

Quote: loiner81 "WOW. Quite possibly the most one-eyed and ridiculous posts i've ever read anywhere. I'm almost speechless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-et6E8ptg 76 mins in.

Quote: loiner81 "WOW. Quite possibly the most one-eyed and ridiculous posts i've ever read anywhere. I'm almost speechless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-et6E8ptg 76 mins in.

So Wigan fans should carry around some sort of collective guilt-trip for unleashing this demon pox on the game, like Catholics and Original Sin?

All coaches are looking for an edge. Any tactic that is more or less within the laws of the game will be utilised. It's the nature of professional sport. Wigan may well have been one of the first in SL to use it (and I guess it emanated, like so much else dubious in the game, from the Melbourne Storm), but if they hadn't someone else would have.

I don't like the tactic, but I think (and most posters here seem to agree?) that drastic rules changes aren't necessary. As pointed out, dangerous contact laws already exist. Referees just need to be prepared to call held in the timely fashion. And if the current NRL interpretation was applied here, I think that would be sufficient. I accept that's a lot easier to achieve with two refs, though.

Bracing myself for Saddened's outrage at the tackle by Henderson on Bateman.

Waiting...

I'm surprised by the lack of outrage at that tackle. As a Saints fan, it certainly adds weight to Wigan fans theory that people are only interested when their players do cannonball tackles.

The Ian Henderson tackle was an absolute disgrace, far worse than Powell's last week, not far off being as bad as Chase's. What was just as bad was James Child not sending him to the sin bin. Earlier this year, foul play was correctly punished on the field by yellow cards. As per usual, this interpretation has been forgotten.

Bateman got straight up from it, but if we would have stayed down, then I think Henderson would have walked. The seriousness of an injury should not dictate the punishment IMO. The risk for injury should and that tackle caused a huge risk. I'd be very disappointed if Henderson didn't get at least a 4 match ban for that.

I'd imagine not that many people have actually seen it with the Catalans game being on the red button. I flicked between it and the Championship game and didn't see the incident

I see them most games i watch, but if the perpertrator is not in Cherry and White, it seems to be ok...

Cannonball tackles such as Chase on Ferres need to be outlawed - but here is the key point - the punishment needs to be instant and not referred to the review panel. To do this the held call has to be better enforced and contact thereafter penalised.
This issue has all come about partly due to the ref not enforcing the held call that allows the third player time to come in. Whether or not a cannonball tackle occurs there are far too many incidents where subsequent to the held call and after the attacker naturally relaxes in order to ptb the tacklers continue to grapple and often throw the tackled player to ground.
We have seen this taken a step further with the force used by the third low down tackler and that is totally unacceptable and dangerous.
Refs need to control the held call. That would not only protect players but would also speed up the ptb for a more free flowing spectacle.

You're right about the held call, it's also that too often a held call leads to a quick play the ball meaning the defenders involved in the tackle are offside/not square and so nice easy metres for the dummy half.

The held call needs to be called quicker but we also need a way of ensuring that after the held call the play the ball isn't taken too quick. Something like the "held" version of the "surrender" or "dominant" call where the ref allows the defenders longer to get off the tackled player.

Having said that, it doesn't excuse in any way, shape or form the appalling nature of these tackles. Only the players who commit them and the coaches who encourage them are to blame for them. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for these type of tackles

For me, any tackle, executed with force, on the leg(s) (ie below the thigh) of a player already in contact with another defender should be outlawed. It should also be a straight red card and minimum 5 match ban. The key point being the red card on the pitch. That's the real deterrent to any action by a player. I'd also have the disciplinary keep an eye on how many incidents are committed by 1 club and if they reach a certain point sanction that club and head coach.

The intent and purpose of these tackles is to cause pain and injury so should be met with a harsh response from the officials and disciplinary.

Without reading 8 pages of arguments...adopt a 2nd ref to police the tackle and ruck would make it easier to punish these awful tackles...plus a mandatory 8 game ban

same here, didn't know anything about it until i red something on this thread.