Have a word with yourself! I think you need to look at both incidents again. I can't seriously believe you think either incident was even noteworthy except in a ''this is a player we hate so lets pretend they were way worse than they actually were'' kind of way. Someone mentioned the Westwood shot on Blake Green earlier. That was far more an attempt to injure a fellow professional. Similarly Woody didn't throw several shots at a man not defending himself in order to 'not injure him'. If you want to aim vitriol in this way at least be prepared to aim it at your own players indiscretions too. That way we might actually give some credence to your points. McIlorum is certainly no saint (pun intended! lol) and on occasion has been worthy of the criticism he received. These incidents, though, were no more or less than happen in virtually every game. In fact a far worse one than the late challenge happened the following night in the Saints?Hudds match. The tackle on Waterhouse didn't even warrant a penalty! Get a grip man!

The problem is how do you define "a bit of Biff'. RL is highly charged collision sport in which emotions are bound to run high and tempers flare resulting in fisticuffs and brawls. This excites the visceral trait in us all but there some who enjoy inflicting pain and injury who intentionally set out to maim and disable and there are all sorts of situations in between. This situation is the psycho's heaven and leads to different penalties for what seems the same offence leading to accusations of bias by the authorities.
Brawls and big hits are part of the game but things like three men tackles where the third man comes in hard and late to hit a vulnerable part of the body and other similar tactics, all of which seem to be a part of McIlorum's repertoire, should be heavily punished.

Wood should of been sent off but the ref bottled it, I am not mentioning the Westwood one because it has no bearing on Thursdays antics from the thug! A bit of biff from Wood and Pettybourne is hardly the same as trying to damage someones knees and charging at a player who was not ready for it!

Where have I advocated taking them out of the game? RL is a hard mans game and we pay to watch hard men go toe to toe with each other and understand that, from time to time, they will go beyond the pail. That is why I was saying, at the present moment, we need a Morley or a Boyd to put some steel in the pack. I do not advocate though the type of physical play that is deliberately designed to injure or disable.

spot on..Woody should have gone...but it wasn't a cowardly attack whilst the player was involved in a tackle. Mick Mac is the worst kind of cheap shot merchant...somebodies career will be finished one of these days by the cannon ball tactic. It needs to be addressed.

is it me or isn't there anything going on in the Wigan board as seems a hell of a lot of visitors on here recently. Correct me if I am wrong but in reference to your suggestion that the wood punching incident is what lead to mcillorum swing the red mist. My view is that the poop house tackles on Waterhouse and cheap shot on Higham was before the wood incident.
Also I firmly believe that wane does send out his team with the instructions to play dirty.

Really???..... I think that's absolute nonsense - Put yourself in Wane's (or any coaches) shoes when faced with a Wire side that has a lead over you and are looking pretty rampant, what do you do?

Quite simply, you do what Wigan did on Thursday night and in the Grand Final. You get in their faces. You bully them. You put some shots in on them.... Then you watch them implode because they have little backbone and no Plan B.

I hate to say it, but at present Wire are a flat track bully - They look fantastic when Plan A comes off and the opposition have no response (a la Saints the other week), but when a side disrupts their initial plans they look weak-willed and ineffective.

Whilst Wane's tactics may not be for the purist, the recent matches between Wire and Wigan shows they work - I would bet you any money that Denis Betts has Widnes primed for a similar assault on Wire this weekend.... He will know full well that for Widnes to stand any chance he has to get stuck in - It certainly won't be pretty if Widnes are to triumph.

I'll be honest the late hit on Laithwaite is a penalty and that's it, nothing to get angry about.
The incident with Higham when he slammed him on the floor again a penalty and that's it.
But sorry I disagree with Phuzzy on the third man in on Waterhouse, it's banned in the NRL and it's a cheap shot, it should be banned here too, it is a very dangerous tackle and rightly been recognised so down under.
Ratchford had his ankles broke in the GF by this very same tackle.
Ban it for 2015 and never return.

Because you're picking and choosing who you believe is 'taking them out of the game' based on your own club loyalties. None of the incidents referred to are even noteworthy, let alone designed to take someone out of the game! The Laithwaite injury was unfortunate but you can't espouse that someone was deliberately taken out of the game every time a player gets injured! I know it suits you preconceived idea that this is how Wigan play the game but, in truth, they play it tough and hard and it's up to your guys to match this. That's the nature of our sport! Let me ask you a question; did Ben Westwood deliberately attempt to take Blake Green out of the GF and, if so, would you care to point out where you posted your disgust at his thuggish behaviour? Or are you prepared to argue that throwing a punch hard enough to fracture a cheekbone on a grounded and held player is 'part of the game' because it's one of your own? Given that it was FAR worse than any of McIlorum's incidents the other day are you happy to state that Tony Smith sends his players out to deliberately injure players as you seem happy to suggest the Wigan coach is? In truth, neither coach would do such a thing and to suggest otherwise is a complete nonsense. Playing tough is a completely different matter. As you say, Boyd did it as well as anyone. However, don't try to make out that because another player called him dirty he ''must be doing something right'' and then not afford the same assessment to others just because they don't play for you. That is the hypocrisy I mentioned in my post.

I posted on this over on our board Yed. If you believe it should be outlawed based on the occasional injury then you have to similarly agree that ANY play that results in injury should equally be banned. Third man in (front or side on) to a standing leg is already banned as this is the one that results in injury. Tackles to the backs of legs is no more likely to result in injury than anything else in the sport. However, if the RFL decide to follow suit and ban it then I will have no problem with an outcry should anyone get injured from it. However, as far as the rules go, it's still legal, and quite rightly so in my opinion. Tackles around the legs have always had a place in our game as long as they aren't dangerous. As for Thursday's game, the third man in tackle was in evidence all evening from both sides. The MM one was no different than any of the others on the night and was to the back of the legs so I can't see why you're singling this one out as opposed to any other. As far as I'm aware no tackle from either team, including this one, has been subject to a disciplinary. Could you explain why you think the one on Waterhouse was any different to the others as I'm a little baffled?

Mate, it has EVERY bearing on what you are saying! You chose not to address it because you simply cannot justify your comments re: McIlorum in Light of it. That's fine, but at least admit it! Either both are thugs or none are. Take your pick...

If I run the ball in, and get hit I have some control to how I prep my body for both impact and how I land, the 3rd man in I have zero control, I'm locked into a position and just have to accept how my body reacts.
Yes there will be times nothing happens but players shouldn't have to be in a position in which they have zero control on anything.
A spear tackle is the same and that is banned.

I understand a normal tackle can injure but calculated risk againt unnecessary risk are different.
McIllorum has form but by no means is it unique to him, all teams do it, and why wouldn't they as it isn't illegal.
I don't get angry about it as it's in the rules but like I say I wince and just think it is unnecessary and should be taken out, after all the player is 99 times out of a hundred tackled anyway and this is a tactic to just slow down the ruck.