Seeing as no-one else appears to have set this belm straight...

You're linking to an incident in 2009, not last season. Brian Noble was coach at the time.

HTH. Better luck next time.

Indeed. Apologies to your present coach.

As you have confirmed, this sort of house tactic has been practised at Wigan for a while.

I admire your honesty.

Whino calls another team houses

You couldnt make it up

I fail to see how one tackle (a tackle that is being exaggerated beyond belief) makes a whole team houses? Fans of other teams are claiming this tackle and one from the season before last make us houses, two tackles in over two years, really? If that counts as making us such a dirty team, what of ablett and McGuire last year, plus seniors kick to joels face. That's only 3 incidents, there were probably many more, just from one seasons games against one opposing team.

As it is, all teams have niggly players, but that's part of the entertainment, everyone loves the pantomime villain.

Oh no we don't.

Oh yes we do

I really think you are over emphasizing the seriousness of Lima's challenge.

Of course he is. It's his Wigan talking-point for this week, though he'll probably have found another one by the end of the week. Then on Saturday morning he'll remember that Leeds have a game.

Isn't it amazing how you managed to gloss over the fact that the people employed to cast judgement on the matter decided not to charge the player?

I'm sure I could find 2 separate incidents (punching for instance), by 2 separate Leeds players committed under 2 different coaches and suggest that those 'tactics' have been practised at Leeds for a while.

In fact, why stop there? I'm sure Garry Schofield was guilty of an offence that a current Leeds player has committed, meaning that the past 20 years at Leeds has been geared around continuing that sort of foul play.

Your link is beyond tenuous, so do us all a favour and at least attempt to make a credible conspiracy about Wigan and their 'house tactics'.

It is rather sad that Wigan fascinates him so.

Without wanting to call you a dum, dum........

You do know the text "no charge" is contained within your little linky?

I'll say it again but your obviously incapable of understanding - I don't give a t*ss about the result and simply thought it was a good game.

I've never once changed the goalposts...you simply keep making strawman arguements to avoid responding to my point.

Don't worry though I'm sure it's just that Leeds, the RFL, John Kear, Andy Raleigh, Mick Potter, Nathan Brown and everyone else this side of Uncle f*cking Joe has it in for poor little Wigan and Geoff Lima

You've yet to make a point that was valid enough to warrant a proper discussion. Your initial "argument" I responded to was based on Clarkson being "held" (your words not mine), when he clearly wasn't. When that one was blown apart you've not actually said anything worthwhile. Now you have to add a list of people/organisations that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said - i.e. you're desperate to save face and now have to resort to people/teams who have whinged when they haven't won against Wigan - we obviously need to add you to that losers list.

FFS... stop going on about my choice of the word "held" - I've said repeatedly and clearly that I mean held as in "being held on to by other players" not as in the tackle being called complete.

You might note that the RFL disciplinary also don't appear to think that "held" has your specially meaning of "not moving forward"/called held by the ref (or whatever your prefered definition is)...

[iRefer to Tribunal Law: 15.1 (i) Detail: Defending player, in effecting a tackle, forcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has [u[ibeen held in the tackle[/i[/u, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player Grade: B [/i

Here's a more eloquent post from the VT making exactly the same point maybe you'll be willing to actually read this one before you misconstrue it..

To clear all this up what the RFL should do is to appoint someone to do a six sigma analysis on which teams and which players cause most injuries to their opponents and which type of tackles are responsible.

This would take all the emotion out of these threads and come up with fact rather than some of the unreasoned rants that appear from some quarters.

So held as in not being tackled then - well done.

And before I'd start quoting what the RFL has said as some kind of evidence, I'd go and look at the difference between being charged with something and being found guilty. HTH.

I'm sure Mr Lima's tackling technique will be commented on and judged in the fullness of time, but tell me Andy, which part of [iforcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player Grade: B[/i are you having difficulty with?

If it helps, the clue is in the words "unacceptable risk"

It also helps if the idiot in the middle utters the word "held", which he did not.

The fact that he has been charged is just a technicality, a mistake by the referee if you will.

HTH

Billy the point isn't with whether it was bad or by it's the fact that other players did the same and haven't been charged. A good record should mean lenient ban not no charge whatsoever. Also the fact he starts at the thigh is ignored. Lima has been targeted before simply look back to a few weeks back and see my post about radford vs Lima radford had a charge sheet that copied limas almost word for word yet radford was let off without a ban and Lima got two matches Lima got 1 per challenge yet radford didn't get 1 for the one he did. Therefore every other player that did what Lima did this week should have at least been charged and they haven't. Btw cross did it to a wigan player about 5 minutes after Lima did it so how a Leeds fan can take the highground when he same player does what happened to him so soon after is frankly ridiculous.

And that's why we need to do this.

No surprises that you don't understand the difference between being charged with something and being found guilty.

Bless.

[iBillyRhino wrote:I'm sure Mr Lima's tackling technique will be commented on and judged in the fullness of time, but tell me Andy, which part of forcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player Grade: B are you having difficulty with?

If it helps, the clue is in the words "unacceptable risk"[/i

I think the first 17 words would indicate that I am well aware of the differences between charged and guilty, but that was not what you were asked.

So, once again Andy.....which part of forcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player, are you having difficulty with?

If you claim to realise the difference then why use a CHARGE as evidence?

We all know that everyone who has every been charged with something is subsequently found guilty don't we?

Now which bit of that do you find so difficult to understand?

i maintain my point.........if 2 guys are tackling a player round the body, a 3rd SHOULD come in and take the legs.
they teach u7s that.

ref hadnt called "held"......so what Lima did was perfectly legal.

works other way round too...if 2 players are tackling with 1 round the legs, and one round the waist, i would expect a 3rd to jump in and clamp the ball carrying arms to stop the offload?...or will we get charged next time we do that as well??

The bit where you attempt to link charge to evidence. Serious question Andy, is English your native language?

The reason I ask is a Charge is a formal accusation.

Evidence will be data presented to the RFL as proof of the facts in issue....testimonies from the Ref and linesmen...Video, with all the different camera angles etc.

That's Evidence, and upon which the RFL will base its judgement.

The Charge, which is something completely different,

is what he will have to answer too.

So, for the 3rd time of asking....which part of the charge are you still struggling to comprehend?