Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:17 pm  

Fronm "twitter"

Ross Heppenstall ‏@rosshtanda 55m
@PWilkinsonWIG The RFL taking no further action from last Friday's game, Franny confirmed today.....

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:10 pm  

Father Ted wrote: That may or may not be the case. However, Bradford fans acknowledge that Cummins was trying to deflect from his team's defeat after being in front 18-4 with under 20 mins to go. Never understood the "standing leg" theory. If a player is carrying the ball and drives into the tackle taking two players with him why should he not be expected to be tackled around the legs to bring him to the floor? A player can't be running and have a "standing" leg at the same time. Standing means being stationary, obviously, so if the practice is that dangerous as many say surely it has to be re-named or something? Maybe the "supporting leg". That makes more sense to me and perhaps explains it better for people like me who began to think they were talking in contradictions. I'd like the rule to be changed so that if a player is being held on his upper body, the defending team can only grab or hold his legs, i.e they cannot drive into the legs. I'm sure if you asked Wane why they do it, he'd say it's to slow the tackle down and buy his side several more seconds, as it forces the ball carrier to submit and fall over. But imagine a 15 stone player, held by two 18 stone props on his upper body, his legs slowing to a stop beneath him. He then has another 15 stone player take one of his knees away with a driving tackle (All completely legal in the game and as admitted by Wayne Bennett it is being coached) you have then got the combined weight of all those players suddenly coming down on the ball carrier's knee joint. I bet it's responsible for a massive number of the leg injuries suffered by SL and NRL players. Wayne Bennett wants it banned, surprisingly Michael Maguire who mastered the technique doesn't believe it ever happens

Father Ted wrote: That may or may not be the case. However, Bradford fans acknowledge that Cummins was trying to deflect from his team's defeat after being in front 18-4 with under 20 mins to go. Never understood the "standing leg" theory. If a player is carrying the ball and drives into the tackle taking two players with him why should he not be expected to be tackled around the legs to bring him to the floor? A player can't be running and have a "standing" leg at the same time. Standing means being stationary, obviously, so if the practice is that dangerous as many say surely it has to be re-named or something? Maybe the "supporting leg". That makes more sense to me and perhaps explains it better for people like me who began to think they were talking in contradictions. I'd like the rule to be changed so that if a player is being held on his upper body, the defending team can only grab or hold his legs, i.e they cannot drive into the legs. I'm sure if you asked Wane why they do it, he'd say it's to slow the tackle down and buy his side several more seconds, as it forces the ball carrier to submit and fall over. But imagine a 15 stone player, held by two 18 stone props on his upper body, his legs slowing to a stop beneath him. He then has another 15 stone player take one of his knees away with a driving tackle (All completely legal in the game and as admitted by Wayne Bennett it is being coached) you have then got the combined weight of all those players suddenly coming down on the ball carrier's knee joint. I bet it's responsible for a massive number of the leg injuries suffered by SL and NRL players. Wayne Bennett wants it banned, surprisingly Michael Maguire who mastered the technique doesn't believe it ever happens

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:44 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I'd like the rule to be changed so that if a player is being held on his upper body, the defending team can only grab or hold his legs, i.e they cannot drive into the legs.

The problems occur when players drive into the standing leg. Flanagan's injury is a prime example of why it should be taken more seriously. It is a bigger problem than the shoulder charge ever was IMO.

Defender's should pin the legs together, rather than drive into them. It's poor technique and it should be outlawed.

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:47 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

Would you see this as a game that could kick start your season?

You've had your issues but Wigan's minds might be drifting towards the cup a little and our form hasn't been great.

You are OVERWHELMING favourites. You really should be putting 30+ points on us the way that we have played all season.

You will smash our forwards, as per, and we will have no answer defensively, again.

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:55 pm  

Albion wrote:

You are OVERWHELMING favourites. You really should be putting 30+ points on us the way that we have played all season.

You will smash our forwards, as per, and we will have no answer defensively, again.

It depends on how many Wane rests for the semi.
Sam won't play for starters.

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:01 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

It depends on how many Wane rests for the semi.
Sam won't play for starters.

Wane resting players vs Saints? Never. I thought he detested us?

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:06 pm  

A hub cap against half a million from Wembley .....no contest, think you can have this one Saints

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:11 pm  

Nice to see the Wiganers getting their potential excuses out early.

You're playing London FFS!

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:32 pm  

Albion wrote:

Nice to see the Wiganers getting their potential excuses out early.

You're playing London FFS!

Indeed. Pathetic that they have no faith in their side. If Wane rests Tomkins, it's because NZ Warriors/Saracens/whoever he's currently employed by want him saving. You don't rest players ahead of a game v London, you rest them for the game v London.

Re: How times have changed : Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:41 pm  

No excuses but seriously which would you take Albion, Wigan will still give Saints a game because Waney wouldn't have it any other way!