The camera never lies Maguire said he thought Joel Tomkins’ challenge on Yeaman was “sloppy” rather than malicious. He said: “It was a bit of a sloppy one there. It connected on the chest and the elbow went up, so we’ll assess that in the week.” www.wigantoday.net/sport/wigan-w ... _1_3177961

The camera never lies Maguire said he thought Joel Tomkins’ challenge on Yeaman was “sloppy” rather than malicious. He said: “It was a bit of a sloppy one there. It connected on the chest and the elbow went up, so we’ll assess that in the week.” www.wigantoday.net/sport/wigan-w ... _1_3177961

McGuire needs to have a word with Joel, if he's going to get that wound up. Good photo though.

Both the Tomkins brother think they own the league, and both do get away with anything. they fall into the James Graham bracket!

Arrogant s who get everything they deserve. When precious little Sam even gets tackled they have a hissy fit.

On another Tomkins related issue, does anyone know what the penalty for the tackle on Sam Tomkins (by Briscoe, I think), down the left hand side late on, was for. Surely if the ball has bounced you can't be done for a tackle in the air just because the defender jumps to take the ball? If so, tactics for Friday must be take the ball up and as the defence close in, leap in the air. Penalty every time

Its going to be really interesting to see the RFL judgement on this one. After viewing the incident it looks to me like Tomkins is aiming straight at Yeaman with the intention of causing him some damage. His elbow is clearly raised, but probably as a result of mis-timing it the contact is with Yeamans chest and not his chin which is where i reckon it was aimed.
How do you prove what his intention was though? Wigan will just argue that it was sloppy rather than malicious.
Either way he is looking at a ban, the difference will be if the RFL judge him to be malicious or reckless. For mine it was malicious and worthy of a lengthy ban but i bet he gets away with a couple of games.

didn't a Hull player (Dannatt iirc) get a ban based on intent as opposed to the actual outcome of his actions once?

8 matches for breaking Hanley's jaw.

Tim Street got done for something like that once while playing for us.

I seem to remember a Hull player getting a ban for 'intent'. Tim Street springs to mind and tbf the verdict was probably right.

Liam Farrell - "The red card was taking it a bit far, maybe he was a bit high, but at the end of the day it's the refs call." www.wiganwarriors.com/WContent.a ... &type=news

Liam Farrell - "The red card was taking it a bit far, maybe he was a bit high, but at the end of the day it's the refs call." www.wiganwarriors.com/WContent.a ... &type=news

To be fair, Tim Street could have been banned for intent every time he stepped onto the rugby pitch!

where are you watching it?