Who says I'm anti Wigan? I'm not. I'm anti dangerous play but as we were discussing the incident last night I commented on that. I'm not sure you are correct about the impact, I'm certain he angles down onto the knee and he still lifted and twisted the leg, no other reason for that than to make the other player 'uncomfortable'.

Another point to consider when talking about first point of ccontact; is it not true that when the initial contact is on the chest but the arm finishes in the face of the tackled player, this is penalised because of the end result and not the initial contact?

It's more about the point of impact coupled with the lifting and twisting of the leg, if you don't see that as a problem for any team or player then I'm a little concerned. I wonder what your comments would have been if Ryan Bailey had done the same to Sam Tompkins?

Oh and by the way I didn't say it was on the standing leg I said the player was standing..........makes a difference as you pointed out with your miss quote

Don't understand the applause for this comment. I didn't say that there is anything wrong with tackling around the legs or that three man tackles are not allowed, I advocate three man tackles with my players. This is about control of the ruck, we also adopt the third man making contact round the legs to complete the tackle and gain extra control/time doing so.

the issue is where you make the initial contact and then how that process is completed, and I can assure you it's not by lifting and twisting the leg this is reckless and dangerous...........that was my point.

I was at the game. When I saw it I thought it was a sin bin (under the new directive).
However, when I watched the sky+ replay I changed my mind.
Have look at this.


Ablett is still moving. The tackle is NOT on the standing leg.

It wasn't even a penalty.
We're in danger of turning the game into basketball.

It wasn't Ablett Rogues, it was Clarkson.

Correct, my mistake. There was still nothing wrong in the tackle, but I can understand on first viewing why the decision was made.(I didn't think Sammots try tonight was try until I saw the replay, about four times)

Still not listening are you .......didn't say it was the standing leg!!!!! I said the player was standing......I.e. Not running!!!!!

it's about where he ATTACKS the SINGLE leg.......a right decision was made on the evidence, it doesn't matter if he is moving or not Lima attacked the SINGLE leg and then bent it to give the player pain.....end of story, I'll be honest with you I would have the same feelings if it was any other player from any other team including my own........he did it.......accept it.......you bought him to be rough and tough didn't you!

The photo is useless because he hasn't made the impact yet so it proves nothing!!!!!

I saw three or four tackles tonight that were very similar, that never got penalised. You'll probably see the same tomorrow.
IMO after watching the sky+ replay there was nothing in the Lima incident, but as I said at the game it did look bad.
Let's see what the review panel come up with, and I'll go with that.

i saw one that got penalised and put on report, just purely for the action, of coming in third man on a prone upright tackled player

Saw the same, it's certainly part of the three man tackle if you get the timing/positioning wrong. just like the head high tackle that starts on the chest and ends in the face.

I think my only issue is that as coaches we all look for the next aspect of the game we can push and stretch to gain the advantage, this then needs to be regulated properly and quickly so we don't end up like football!

The review panel will see it for what it is without our emotion, and like you I'll go with their decision. Warning sufficient in my opinion.

He has previous and this is the third time this season he has looked dodgy in the tackle.

Seconded TD. It is obvious Amp has an agenda against Wigan.

This sort of tackle happens league wide and quite frankly am glad to see it finally getting punished. Its a cheap shot and an act of thuggery. Whether or not there was intent or where the initial contact was doesn't matter, its the potential injury it may cause.