BTW - this is nothing new for Wigan - I remember Frano Botica flashing the V's at me and my mates in front of the kids on the wall at the front of the southstand...classy!
I remember Leeds player Gareth Stephens flicking them towards his own fans ...
Fat Boy wrote: Bradford are now officially the RFL's biatches. Seventies red wrote: Whats a biatch?. gulfcoast_highwayman wrote: They wear red and white and cry a lot in October.
Against the Southern Hemisphere sides last year, he was complete anonymous, despite the banana boots.
When Robinson was a little off the rails he had a big old Christian to settle him down.
Is it possible that Sam T is a little immature? Does need some guidance. And perhaps needs some support and encouragement to deliver his undoubted talents on the big stages. Stop him going missing. Give him the confidence to express himself.
Personally I think he is an asset the game in the UK can use to promote itself. In my humble the vitriol and venom spouted at a young lad is actually exacerbating the situation, and furthermore is actually making the game look worse than any antics of one player.
When Robinson was a little off the rails he had a big old Christian to settle him down.
Is it possible that Sam T is a little immature? Does need some guidance. And perhaps needs some support and encouragement to deliver his undoubted talents on the big stages. Stop him going missing. Give him the confidence to express himself.
Personally I think he is an asset the game in the UK can use to promote itself. In my humble the vitriol and venom spouted at a young lad is actually exacerbating the situation, and furthermore is actually making the game look worse than any antics of one player.
Check out Tompkin's reaction towards Rob Hicks, the touch judge, after the last Leeds try and come back to me ....
Fat Boy wrote: Bradford are now officially the RFL's biatches. Seventies red wrote: Whats a biatch?. gulfcoast_highwayman wrote: They wear red and white and cry a lot in October.
Hypocracy applies to a denial of a balanced situation. Where one party is singular and in the public eye and the other is an unidentifiable group, how can there be balance?
I note that you don't feel offended by your own fans "irrational" dislike of McGuire or Bailey. The latter has dealt with more animosity from opposition fans over the years than Tomkins has had to deal with and, as far as I know, has never acted in such a childish manner.
What saddens me is that he should be such a positive for the game, he is a genuine talent. However, with behaviour like that the positives are negated.
Finally, these unfortunate incidents have occured probably since spectator sports were invented. What is really wrong is kn0b jockeys like you and the media justifying it, closely followed by a lack of action by the relevant governing bodies.
I'm not offended by either my own fans dislike of McGuire and Bailey or other fans dislike of Tomkins. Disliking opposition players is what we do and it's perfectly normal, but if people are prepared to boo a player every week, even when he's playing for England, and incite violence and injury upon him, then they really have no moral high ground to claim when that player responds. I don't agree with what Tomkins did, by the way, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in the reaction to it from people trying to justify their own abuse of him. I haven't justified what he has done at all, but I'm sure that doesn't matter as you were probably just dying to use the phrase "kn0b-jockey" on a forum so you can tell your pals at school what a dangerous little boy you are.
Given this then ... Perhaps you might like to explain the flurry of abuse that Sam 'Can do no wrong' Tomkins subjected Rob Hicks (the touch judge) to after the last Leeds try ?
Had Hicks been booing him ?
Is Tompkins exempt from respecting match officials too ?
Hicks was doing his job and yet was subjected to an Alex Ferguson style 'hairdryer' from someone who thinks he is bigger than the game.
My regret is that Rob Hicks 'bottled it' and failed to bring the incident to Bent-Hams attention ...
The answer to your question is no, Sam Tomkins is not exempt from respecting match officials, and I fully expect you'll be posting your condemnation of such things when any other player does it, including your own. What's that? It's only Sam Tomkins' transgressions you're interested in you say? Ah, I see. I fully understand mate, if I were trying to vilify a player I might be tempted to pretend he's the only one ever to have disagreed with a touch judge.
I am pretty sure I asked a question about immaturity. .
Wigan seriously thought they might lose surely? Sam T might have reacted with the emotion of that.
And to be fair Hicks has been a chocolate fireguard all year. Useless.
Exactly my point.
Are you suggesting that Wigan are the first team to lose an important game, ever ?
The laughable point about Tompkins reaction was the try had been refered to the Video Referee anyway, but instead of seeing what that decision might be, he was over there screaming at someone.
Hicks really did nothing wrong and yet was subject to the volley of abuse from someone who thinks he is bigger than the whole game itself and behaves according.
Now if you want to go behave like that and scream at officials, then I suggest he goes plays Wendy-Ball where that sort of thing is acceptable and is played lip-service to (in terms of dealing with it), whereas in RL, respect for the officials (good or bad) is sacrasanct.
If every player reacted in the same way at the same point of a game, then the sport would end in chaos. If his team mates or coach can't / won't deal with the issue, then it is the job of the governing body of the sport to come down hard on him and teach him some other with. Something like a big fine and / or a ban might focus the mind to start with.
The answer to your question is no, Sam Tomkins is not exempt from respecting match officials, and I fully expect you'll be posting your condemnation of such things when any other player does it, including your own. What's that? It's only Sam Tomkins' transgressions you're interested in you say? Ah, I see. I fully understand mate, if I were trying to vilify a player I might be tempted to pretend he's the only one ever to have disagreed with a touch judge.
There's disagreement / back-chat and there's running over and screaming at them ...
And for the record, match officials are partly to blame. On this occasion, Hicks should have brought the attention to Bentham.
Generally in the game, the use of the 10 yards back + penalty for back chat is sadly under used and perhaps if it was applied more certain immature players might think twice about their actions ....
Fat Boy wrote: Bradford are now officially the RFL's biatches. Seventies red wrote: Whats a biatch?. gulfcoast_highwayman wrote: They wear red and white and cry a lot in October.
Are you suggesting that Wigan are the first team to lose an important game, ever ?
The laughable point about Tompkins reaction was the try had been refered to the Video Referee anyway, but instead of seeing what that decision might be, he was over there screaming at someone.
Hicks really did nothing wrong and yet was subject to the volley of abuse from someone who thinks he is bigger than the whole game itself and behaves according.
Now if you want to go behave like that and scream at officials, then I suggest he goes plays Wendy-Ball where that sort of thing is acceptable and is played lip-service to (in terms of dealing with it), whereas in RL, respect for the officials (good or bad) is sacrasanct.
If every player reacted in the same way at the same point of a game, then the sport would end in chaos. If his team mates or coach can't / won't deal with the issue, then it is the job of the governing body of the sport to come down hard on him and teach him some other with. Something like a big fine and / or a ban might focus the mind to start with.
Sorry Admiral I can't see your point. I've said he's immature and needs guidance. I haven't tried to excuse his antics.
I just feel that people are getting on his back a little too much. He hasn't killed or raped anyone. He's guilty of silliness and hotheadedness yes. But surely there is a limit to how far you can villify someone for that?