i dont know why you are insisting that O'loughlin is 'one of the fairest' and as such beyond reproach when outside wigan he has quite the reputation for a head hunter, it seems your wigan bias has heavily clouded your judgement here,

saying that, its not really fair to pick a player and tackle at random and decide to make an example of them.
There is no reason, however, that the RFL couldnt use this to draw a line in the sand and say we will be on the look out for it in the next games with heavy punishments for those who transgress

so what? im no giants fan, and dont need to protect Brown, but if you think tackles like O'loughlins arent practised and the idea of putting a hit on the playmaker even if you are a late isnt a tactic openly discussed at clubs you are very very naive.

Why is Brown asking Mason et al to use other similar tactics any different?

No mate I'm not naive. I've also been watching this game for well over 20 years so trust me when I say I know the difference between putting pressure on a kicker (or passer in this case) and attempting to take someone's head off. What Brown is advocating is retribution for something [uhe[/u doesn't like, eventhough it's no different than anything else that warrants a penalty in a game. O'Loughlin was doing something that has been part of the game for as long as it's been played. If you (or he) don't like the fact that it doesn't always go perfectly then I suggest you're watching, and he's coaching, the wrong game! Are you seriously suggesting that coaches should send their players out with the instruction that whenever a decision doesn't go their way they should take retribution?

One further point. If you seriously think a late tackle is the same as sending players out with the instruction to take the law (of the game) into their own hands as you suggest in your last sentence then it's you who is naive....

i think that props putting themselves about a bit has been part of the game since it began. I think an enforcer protecting his backs may well be written into a props job description.

I think asking a prop to risk giving a penalty away via sly punch, a high tackle, a swinging arm, a bit of a facial, , maybe if at all possible provoke a fight so they can try a bit of intimidation, get a bit of retribution and maybe make O'loughlin (or any number of other players) think again before they try it, is absolutley no different to asking O'loughlin to put a hit on the playmaker whether he is late or not to try and put a bit of doubt in the playmakers mind. Its two sides of exactly the same coin

Here's Tony Smiths take on it from the Warrington Guardian. Seems like he thinks Brown was out of order making the comments and then goes on to mention our "enforcers". Makes for an interesting game come Saturday....



[urlhttp://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/wolves/wolvesnews/8150162.Smith__Headache_to_select_the_Warrington_team/[/url

Other than one is an error of timing and the other is an error of intent. If you can't tell the difference then the debate is meaningless.

Just to clarify. If I run someone over as a consequence of an error in my driving is that the same as me purposefully, willfully and deliberately setting out with the intention of running them over in your opinion?

if you run someone over through a reckless disregard for safety then yes.

If you want to pretend O'loughlin is angel who wouldnt dare throw himself into a tackle knowing full well he will likely be late then fine. I dont mind. But every team, in every league trys it, maybe Wigan are different, maybe they are making a subtle stand for the Corinthian spirit of sport and everything illegal or bit naughty they do is completely accidental, who knows

But all other 13 teams in SL do it, they will all take the risk of hitting the playmaker late to try and intimidate him and put him off his game, they will all rather hit him late than not hit him, we see it numerous times a game, asking your props to put themselves about a little in retribution is hardly something to get your knickers in a twist about, this isnt ballet

And Smith is spot on in what he says. In particular; "I can understand where he is coming from but your own backyard has to be clean to say something like that and I’m not sure that is necessarily the case." hits the nail on the head. Brown is a hypocrite, pure and simple. Dressing it up as anything else is laughable.

someone should tell the little Aussie runt we dont care about his opinion.

Mate, you really can't distinguish between something that happens as a result of persuing the game and something instigated outside the rules, can you? No one is suggesting the game isn't hard or that foul play doesn't occur. As I said earlier, if you are unable to tell the difference your contibution to this debate is rendered meaningless.

Let's just try one more time. If someone is accidently shot as a consequence of a hunting accident is this the same as someone going out with a gun to shoot someone deliberately? Now, I can't for a minute believe you genuinely don't know the difference, in which case, why are you struggling with the concept of someone being challenged late as a consequence of something that goes on in the game as opposed to players deliberately going out to hit/hurt/injure players? Surely it's not that difficult a concept to grasp?

I'm not even saying that O'Loughlin's tackle shouldn't have been penalised. It was, by the rules of the game, worthy of a penalty which is exactly what it got. I also don't see the problem with forwards going out to intimidate other players as long as it's done legally. In fact, it's a major part of the game. This is not what you're defending here. You're defending the right of coaches to send out players with the sole intent of attacking opposition players just because said coach doesn't want to be subject to the same laws as everyone else!! You rightly say this isn't ballet. But it isn't a mugging either!

Looking after the little guys is something we were always taught, but that was done behind closed doors. Brown has now made at least two PUBLIC statements to this effect, boasting that his tough guys will take care of business if the ref doesn't.

It's the public aspect of this that's the problem. It's the sort thing Danny Dyer comes out with in lads' mags. A bit pathetic really.

Tony Smith is hardly going to back Nathan Brown is he when he was named along with Cummins quoted as saying we can't ban all players because there would'nt be enough quality one's left!!