Quote TheElectricGlidingWarrior="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"The defending player has a duty of care to carry out the tackle safely. If they fail to do so they can and do get penalised within the laws of the game. Ah Van closed his fist and launched it in then direction of a fellow player's head and connected with it, for which he was punished. I'd have given him yellow but it was 50/50 between yellow and red and then ref has to make a judgment call.
What's notable in the aftermath of these events is the way Tomkins and Smith have been roundly condemned by Wigan fans yet you're falling over yourself to excuse Ah Van.'"
There is no moral equivalence here. Either Ah Van was wrong or he wasn't. What Smith and Tomkins did later (which is undoubtedly a negative) does not make one iota of difference as to whether Ah Van's was. We can debate that seperately, and we are.
Everyone agrees it was a foul, undoubtedly so, and some are even saying a yellow card although considering it was the first offence I think that would have been harsh. You see these challenges all the time, they never result in a red. We've been punished above what usually happens.
There is no ambiguity in the offences we saw later. Smith kicked a player running away from him out of play, on purpose, for no intent other than he lost his temper and wanted to injure. Tomkins, perhaps mistakenly trying to douse a situation caused by the violence of his team mate, grappled a completely innocent player to the floor when he was unawares. I think that's a lesser offence but not an innocent one. There's no debate to be had there, it's pure violence. With Ah Van's intent is everything, and a lot are agreeing there was no intent to cause harm. Misjudged tackle, foul.
And let's be clear. If he hadn't been sent off, people wouldn't be quite as agitated by the shoddy, shoddy discipline showed by Wigan on a few occasions yesterday.