Re: Tony Puletua : Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:29 am  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

I really hope Wellens doesn't play at 1. This would be a massive backstep after Lomax's performances there.

As has been stated here , Wello and his lack of ability to get to and return a ball at speed + a good Wigan kicking game (which with Smith is likely) + an enthusiastic and fired up Wigan defence (another hallmark of the current Wigan side) will mean a very long day at the office for us, most of it spent camped on our own line either getting smashed or desperately trying to keep them out. If this is the case Ratkins will have a free run, especially as we tire later in each half.

Re: Tony Puletua : Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:12 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

I'd personally be tempted to name Lomax at 6 but play him as a full back when we're defending and have Wello in the main defensive line where the stand off defends.

I think it'd be a risk playing Charnock and Speakman/Ashe against Wigan, as they will target them defensively. Gaskell is clearly shot for confidence so it'd be a bit of a risk bringing him back now aswell.

You may say that, but Wigan are going to be stacked with youngsters with little experience.

Lomax has to play #1, I'd perhaps understand putting speakman on the bench and starting Flash at hooker to absorb the early barrage and avoid them targeting him from the outset, but he should be on at 20 mins. Ashe is simply not an option for me at hooker.
For #6, assuming Gaskell is not being considered, I'd hope for Swift to finally be available and take Charnock if not.

When is Walker going to be fit again? Its a shame he got injured given his high tackle count in his opening games.

Re: Tony Puletua : Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:25 pm  

Any news on Puletua's injury?

Re: Tony Puletua : Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:25 am  

One eyed monster wrote: I hope the RFL look at the tackle then ended his game tonight, if you can get banned for throwing a punch or catching someone high then surely this tackle 'technique' should cost you a ban ? Tony held by 3 players, not moving forward (accepting the tackle) when in comes a shi*house as 4th man and cleans Tony's knees out. No need for it and a clear attempt to injure a player IMO No charge. Tackle was around the thigh. http://therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4251

One eyed monster wrote: I hope the RFL look at the tackle then ended his game tonight, if you can get banned for throwing a punch or catching someone high then surely this tackle 'technique' should cost you a ban ? Tony held by 3 players, not moving forward (accepting the tackle) when in comes a shi*house as 4th man and cleans Tony's knees out. No need for it and a clear attempt to injure a player IMO No charge. Tackle was around the thigh. http://therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4251

Re: Tony Puletua : Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:04 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote: No charge. Tackle was around the thigh. http://therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4251 Well that just proves what a load of old balls the disciplinary system is then.

Rogues Gallery wrote: No charge. Tackle was around the thigh. http://therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4251 Well that just proves what a load of old balls the disciplinary system is then.

Re: Tony Puletua : Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:33 pm  

Top Saint wrote:

Well that just proves what a load of old balls the disciplinary system is then.

Exactly - whether it's on the thigh or side of the knee, the result is the same in that situation (lateral impact pressure on the knee, causing ligament damage). I remember when Ratboy was starting out and put one in on a stationary & held-up Cunningham. KC was out for about 6 weeks.

It's a coward's trick and worse/more dangerous, IMO, than the shoulder charge

Re: Tony Puletua : Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:43 pm  

Th'ump wrote:

Exactly - whether it's on the thigh or side of the knee, the result is the same in that situation (lateral impact pressure on the knee, causing ligament damage). I remember when Ratboy was starting out and put one in on a stationary & held-up Cunningham. KC was out for about 6 weeks.

It's a coward's trick and worse/more dangerous, IMO, than the shoulder charge

Wrong.
Cunningham played in the next game v Huddersfield. (2009)

Re: Tony Puletua : Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:24 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Wrong.
Cunningham played in the next game v Huddersfield. (2009)

Well perhaps 6 weeks was a slight exaggeration... He played against Hudds with the knee ligament injury, which was well strapped up, but went off early. Roby played the next game after that.

That doesn't detract from the point about the danger & cowardice of such a tackle

Re: Tony Puletua : Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:34 pm  

Th'ump wrote:

Well perhaps 6 weeks was a slight exaggeration... He played against Hudds with the knee ligament injury, which was well strapped up, but went off early. Roby played the next game after that.

That doesn't detract from the point about the danger & cowardice of such a tackle

Slight?
He missed ONE game.

He was still struggling in the tackle, the referee could have shouted held but didn't. Had Cunningham passed the ball and Saints scored do you think the Wigan coach (Noble) would have been pleased?

Re: Tony Puletua : Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:40 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Slight?
He missed ONE game.

He was still struggling in the tackle, the referee could have shouted held but didn't. Had Cunningham passed the ball and Saints scored do you think the Wigan coach (Noble) would have been pleased?

No problem with Ratboy trying to complete the tackle but, if you've played the game, you'll know there are many ways to injure a player easily if you were minded to. By attacking a prone knee side on with the shoulder when the attacker is held up in a tackle, it's very likely ligament damage will result. Which it did.