Because the tackle wasn't complete means that he can target the knee?

There's been no complaint that the tackle was late, it wasn't, there's no argument that he couldn't go in to complete the tackle, he could. It's the manner in which he went in that is up for debate, a fact that a lot of you appear to be ignoring.

A week of cringeworthy defence of Cunningham over the Stosic incident and now 3 non-stop cringeworthy days of attacking Tomkins for his legitimate tackle of Cunningham!!!!! Embarassing!

But if you're honest, it's pretty difficult to tackle someone round the legs without, in some way or other, targeting the knee.

You're right - injury could have been caused, but it can be caused by any number of legal tackles in RL. Some Wigan fans may be going OTT a little in their defence of Sam here, but game's are played at 100 miles an hour and you can't not go for the legs in case you hit the knee, especially when the player concerned is patently not going down and looking to unload.

Some of you guys really do play up this 'Self Pity City' image that Scouseland is famous for.

Let's be very, very clear about something - Cunningham decked someone last week with near enough a clear-cut punch in the face. Maybe accidental, maybe not. But it was much worse than Sam's offence. Leave this issue now and stop making yourselves look like a bunch of 'one rule for us' plonkers.

Of course they are. Tomkins is their little hero boy. They aren't going to diss him for anything, in spite of him having been examined by the beak rlfive times in his lengthy 17 game careerrl. I'd say that record speaks for itself. We don't need the Pies to acknowledge it.

And similarly we don't need idiots like you to acknowledge the legitimate arguments put up in his defence - but they're there, whether you like it or not, and the RFL clearly accepts them.

But it's a bit rich, a Saints guy whingeing about a bolshy Wigan halfback, when, among others, you lot have idolised Alec Murphy, Neil Holding, Tommy Martyn, and ... oh yes, let's not forget, Sean Long, whose antics to date are probably among the most embarrassing in the history of the sport

What manner? With his shoulder on the thigh. That's how I was taught to tackle.

In some way or other yes, but plenty players manage to do it week in and week out without hitting the standing player fully side on on the knee.



It can be, which is why cheap shots aren't welcomed. And it was a cheap shot.

Sorry, I meant that I agreed with you on the Saints fans defence. It's as dodgy as you lot defending Tomkins

I look forward to the RFL's new rules for 2010.

"Defenders may only tackle an opposition player round the legs from the front or rear, and only when in motion. Defenders may not tackle from the side, and certainly not below the waist, and certainly not when the attacker is stationary and prone. If the attacking player has been held for a moment and the referee has yet to call 'held', players must pre-empt the referee's call and refrain from tackling for fear of a warning letter. Nevertheless, should the attacker manage to offload or continue his run, play will be allowed to continue."

How the feck is Burrow supposed to tackle Big Eorl??

Pathetic. Whether it caused damage or not, it was a legal and legitimate hit. Fatty KFC and his wailing fan club need to get the feck over it and move on.

Summed up very nicely.

I've never seen such a none issue blown up out of all proportion quite like this before.

If Cunningham hadn't spat the dummy out nothing would have been said or done by the RFL and i think we all know that.

FFS get real, it's rugby, he was perfectly legally tackled, it's not tick n pass, move on. Just cos everyone else tackles around the torso / head, it's noticeable when an effective low tackle is made. It's certainly how I was taught to tackle by a former Wigan 1st team coach.