Great win yesterday but at the end !!!

Miller looked bad.
Fifita was limping and strapped
Walker was limping
England was limping
Arona looked like his knee.

Five leg injuries. We all know Wigan also have a massive injury list, could it be their pitch is somehow a contributory factor. We seem to have got more wounded bodies in one game than we have had most of the season. Just hope its not too serious for most.

Sensational win, v pleased for the boys as they playing so well

Fingers crossed none of them are long term injuries, hopefully we'll get some updates with who's in what condition in the next 24 /36 hours

With regards to the Wigan pitch, I'm not sure I'd say just a coincidence as it's not some where we have traditionally picked up injuries

No coincidence in this or Wigan's current number of injuries. For me the tackling techniques they are taught are shockingly dirty. Never more evident than the first time I saw Tautai play back at Belle Vue after signing with them. Injuries sustained in training and on match day are all courtesy of Shaun Wane's brutal coaching.

Fingers crossed that the injuries arent too bad.

We could be going into our next game with a patched up squad, especially in the forwards.

Could do with Allgood being passed fit now

This is more likely - it's a matter of public record that they are coached to play this way.

Are you serious ?

Nothing to do with having so many players "doubling up" after Friday then


Wigan do play a very physical game, parly to try and intimidate the opposition but, Wane is just a little bit better than that and many of Wigans "injuries" will be part of his squad management, getting his first choice 17 in prime condition for the business end of the season.

Yes I was being serious. We will agree to disagree on this one and no I am not crazy

The crazy was about doubling up Friday and Monday, which is balmy.

Tautai, when he cane back to Wakefield, just looked more in control and as though he knew what hill role in their side was.
He still makes some mistakes but, Wigan were able to use him differently to the Wakefield team that he left.
Wigan dont take a backward step but, when we put Fafita and England on yesterday, they couldn't cope


As I said, Wigan's squad will be in far better shape after the split and our next game may be a sterner test but, I cant go for them being down on troops because of "self inflicted" injuries, due to their over zealous training methods.

I have watched Wigan every time they have been on TV this season and it seems to me they have three players in at most every tackle two up top and then one coming in slightly later round the lower legs . No matter what angle the lower player comes in at this is when a lot of injuries occur. Although its not illegal on many occasions its not called for. Tough sport but some players and coaches make it more dangerous than necessary.

Not at all. The third player rarely comes in hard and if they do it's higher up. Wigan have been penalised for supposed cannonball tackles and so have other teams. What it actually is is controlling the ruck speed. 3 players instead of 2 have to peel off giving the defensive line more time to set.

Yes at all; there were pictures doing the rounds under the Maguire tenure, of their tackle technique - it had the somewhat sinister title "Snap the Pole," and was a guide on how to attack the standing leg. Not to mention Wane's ill-considered comments during the WCC documentary: “knock people out” and “Create &^%$£*@ mayhem, be reckless, because that’s what’s going to get us a &^%$£*@ win.”

They play a needlessly thuggish brand of RL, and have done for a number of years.

All coaches are now coaching third man in to hit the legs, in theory a responsible player will hit high on the legs and take care , what happens in reality is that some players are not responsible and cannot control their aggression or are simply trying to do damage. For me it is the area of the game that the requires urgent immediate action. No idea what a workable rule would be : second man must tackle round the legs if first man goes high perhaps. How many players have to suffer career threatening knee injuries before , players, coaches clubs demand action.
On the Wigan question, I am a big fan of Wane, I love his passion for his club, his team I love his toughness , that said I have heard from players who are no longer at Wigan that training at Wigan is full on, contact at Wigan means full contact, a bit like the Derek Turner approach, perhaps that is why they have so many injuries

I believe in NRL their rule is third man in cannot tackle below thighs (initial contact) or it's an immediate penalty, however watching NRL recently I've not seen evidence of this being consistently enforced, so who knows? Just make a cannonball tackle a mandatory 10mins and put on report for further sanctions, just like shoulder barge

Somehow I think the game needs to come up with a better option, if for example a team playing Wigan decide that first time Williams gets held by two the third man cannonballs him and smashes his knee , a ten minute sin bin seems inadequate, how about a 12 month ban for any cannonball ie about the same time it takes to potentially recover from knee reconstruction surgery .

I don't know any coaches that coach to aim at the knee or anywhere near it.
The third man in is coached to aim at the upper thigh or hip then to wrap the knees to kill any leg drive before the player is taken to ground.

Players are expressly instructed that attacking any joint in a manner which puts pressure against the natural range of movement is unacceptable and apart from being illegal it's something Players won't tolerate amongst themselves.

No doubt some players get it wrong, some are reckless and some are just out to purposely do damage but it was ever thus! Today it's the cannonball, before that it was chicken wing and 30 years ago it was the Les Boyd elbow to the jaw. The tackle technique changes but it's irresponsible players who commit the fouls and unfortunately they're a part of the game.

Having the punishment fitting the crime but, these things are not (always) deliberate and I dont know if you would get universal support for that type of thing.
Although, for any deliberate and reckless challenge that injures a player, it seems like a fair deal.

Mind you, on past form, clubs like Wigan, would always be "innocent" (SOL head shot last season springs to mind) and clubs like ours would have half of our squad banned.

I would question that hurting or taking out an opposition player is never coached - I'm sure that sometimes it is.

But your quote above is the real issue - some players can't, or won't, control their aggression; so they should be dealt with harshly until the message is so loud and clear for players and coaches, that they deal with it themselves. Liam Watts is a good example - a great player, but he is repeatedly before the beak for dangerous, reckless tackles that have the potential to end a career. For me, a history of on-field misconduct should ramp up the potential sanctions for any new infringement.

With regard to tackle technique - I don't know what the answer is - but the current iteration of the tackle is ugly and dangerous; holding a man up while your mates run in and smash his ribs, torso and legs - then ending up in a massive, tangled dog-pile, in which you can pull on the ball and rub your elbows in his face, is almost certainly not what the rules intended. It could be sorted - if there was a will.

What do you suggest is done to sort it out? I agree with you btw. It's like the game has reached a crossroads where ruck speed has become the be all and end all. It never used to be like that and it used to be a better spectacle with more variation in play. I may sound like a dinosaur but I prefer the more open and entertaining style than the grind the game has become in many cases.

I would say the way the game has evolved has brought this about. The 10m rule means that the ball carrier has to be controlled to allow defences back onside and to slow the PTB. In the old days of the 5m rule play the balls were quicker because people could get back onside.

Or if you keep the 10m maybe allow far less time for tackles to be completed or not allow more than 2 tacklers in at any one time.

Possibly again reduce the number of subs so that more gaps appear and players have less strength for all the wrestling garbage?

Then again do we really need wholesale rule changes? Cas have shown they can play entertaining rugby without the cynical stuff. Perhaps we're seeing the beginnings of a change of ethos in RL from the Maguire/Wane style to something better? If Cas win things playing like this it will force others to follow. People eagerly followed the cynical Wigan style because it was effective. It's not in the NRL and we're perhaps seeing the same here now.

The answer is with the referees to shout 'held' sooner than at present. The third man comes in low when one or possibly two players are struggling up top with the tackled player and referees allow this to go on for seconds, giving time for the third man to go below - legally most times! Silverwood (when he was around) was the worst offender.

Good point. Often the "held" call comes just as they pull the ball carrier down and then that leads to another 3 or 4 seconds while they all peel off.

But the ref shouldn't shout held if the player is still struggling forward. He robs them of a few metres or a chance of an overload because he's winning the tackle.

Perhaps limiting tacklers to two would be an idea. Would provide more off-loads and we'd see more grunt and reward good forwards.

Like with most things in RL, the rules don't need changing, just applying properly. If those sorts of tackles were punished consistently and bans received accordingly then people would soon stop doing it. Acton was only banned for one game for a cannonball on Fifita the other week, plus the referee didn't even penalise him at the time!