What? So now you claim Clarke only said it because it was a Leeds player? That's nuts too.

nope, i didnt say that, read it again.

so you are saying it is sportsmanlike to stand over an injured player shouting at him?

in what way does it 'seem' without foundation? in the way that there is video evidence of Wigan players surrounding Mcguire whilst he is injured?

Er, no. Obviously it's not.




Because there is absolutely no evidence of any person wishing to treat McGuire was in any way restrained or hampered in doing so by any Wigan player. If you can provide evidence from any of the medicos that there was a delay in treatment caused by Wigan players then you have a good point, but I haven't seen any, any would think I would have if it existed. That is why to me it "seems without foundation". Does that help?



As requested, I have read it again. It says:

The "somebody" you refer to is Phil Clarke, and so you said:
"Somebody (i.e. Phil Clarke) said something a bit classless and a bit tasteless purely because it was a leeds player."
So yes, you did say that.

so why criticise Peacock for saying something you agree with?

other than the video evidence



its one sentence, read the whole sentence rather than starting in the middle of it. Somebody else is mentioned, and also what they are doing and why they are doing it. Your attempt to be a smart isnt going too well is it?

superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=19062 For calling Mcguire a cheat

superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=19062 For calling Mcguire a cheat

Two words pot & kettle spring to mind

I read the article, but cant see the apology from McCleannan for accusing Wigan players of causing the injury by foul play, as the clown said in the live broadcast after the match.

And I bet that if you did ask other Super League players that they would say yes he did cheat by "tackling" Carmont without the ball. Unless they play for leeds, then NO he didnt cheat

Clarke was clearly wrong to say what he said, Peacock has made clear what McClennan was complaining about with regards to Mcguire. McClennan should have been a bit more circumspect in his words but i can forgive anyone's outburst seconds after a close match and such a controversial incident.

Clarke however has no excuse for such a tasteless and classless remark in a written article days after the event.

This thread will go two ways - one justifying Clarke by all the Wigan fans still bitter at the JJB loss and vilifying him by all the Leeds fans upset about the aftermath following Danny Turnstilles injury.

I was surprised by Clarke's comments in a day and age where bland reflections are the norm. Was actually refreshing to read an open and frank opinion. Whether it is accurate of course is a wholly different matter (see above)...

I would say Wigan as a club, it's fans, staff and cronies like Clarke reacted to the defeat in a very poor way. They have no grace and no class as a club and their fans should be ashamed of themselves for the bile they spouted after the game. Anyone associated with Wigan has a cheek to be complaining of cheating and rugby gods after Wigan's deliberate salary cap rorting to avoid relegation a few years back.

It all makes Saturday's game very interesting. Whoever wins is going to have several chunks torn out of them. The RFL need to pick a very, very strong referee for this one as it could get out of hand very, very quickly.

Spot on there. Wonder if Ben Thaler will get the gig on Saturday

In the same way that McCleannan had no Grace in his aftermatch interview?

Wigan "Cheated" the salary cap, in the same way that Saints did in there grand final winning year?

You do realise that in his post match remarks, McLennan was referring to the antics of Riddell and TLeuluai. Yes he got his words the wrong way round but reiterated something happened after McGuire had gone down injured.

Ohhh he got his words the wrong way round? ohh thats ok then

Are you suggesting the return of Showbiz Steve?

Another cryptic comment, but what I said about Peacock is so self-explanatory that I don't need to respond to your baffling question.


Which video evidence would that be? Unless you have a feed to some pictures other than those transmitted?


Sorry but they are your words. I obviously already read the whole sentence. Are you in your laboured way trying to say you meant something other than the obvious meaning of the admittedly rather tortuous sentence you typed?


I shouldn't bother with the personal stuff. Suffice to say no smartassing on my part - I was just trying to have a discussion.

Just like a few crass Wigan fans on these boards.

it seems you are baffled by quite simple things
the pictures broadcast showed Wigan players surrounding Mcguire.


well then you should clearly understand, who the other person was, what they were doing and why they were doing it Ill give you a clue, the person was you.

of course you were, in further news Im the new King of Spain

I'm thinking more along the lines of a guest referee. Hulk Hogan or Barrack Obama or Russell Crowe. Someone the players will listen to.

if they send in a fool like Smith or Thaler there will be carnage.

I asked you to pack this stuff in. You continue to be personal and "smartass". Not me.


Look, we all watched, you don't need a commentary. What they did not show is any delaying of treatment, and that's the point you're avoiding.




This is just boring. No-one is interested in your game. if you intended to say something else - why not just say it? Then, or even now?


WTF

Is your crypticometer on overload, or is this your way of admitting that you are making yourself look like a Juan Carlos? =#FFFFFFLook! A pretty damn fine smart comment right there!

im sure not even you beleive that


you said it seems without foundation, the foundation of the accusation is right there, the fact it hasnt been proved 100% by the video evidence we have seen, doesnt mean it is without foundation, there is clear evidence it is quite likely that the wigan players surrounding the injured player didnt allow the physio to provide treatment as quickly as he otherwise could have done, especially considering the inordinate amount of time between Mcguire's injury and the stretcher coming on.

ok, we will start at the beginning and go in baby steps

This draws a distinction between the preceeding sentence and the sentence to come

this is the possessive of you, it belongs to you, in this context it means the action belongs to you, it is yours

this means avoiding admitting someone said something a bit classless and a bit tastless

this means specified person (you) did it (avoided admitting someone said something a bit classless and a bit tasteless) purely because it was a leeds player

or as a sentence

i was just making a claim that clearly wasnt true, like you were.

You're right. Something did indeed happen after he went down injured. Little Daniel lay on the floor like a wounded puppy and big huge nasty Riddell shouted at him and called him terrible names.
Fck me, thought this was RL. Can't they handle a bit of name-calling?



Like GB Lion, I must have missed the article where McLennan apologised to the entire Wigan squad for accusing one of them of causing the injury as his precious Daniel lay prostrate on the ground, instead of what actually happened.

Awaits some blind stupid Leeds fans to explain he was only steadying himself on Carmont because his knee had gone.

That you continue to be personal? Well yes, just read the thread.

Yes!
... is just that - a fact. Thank you.
Yes,
it plainly does!
What evidence? There is NO evidence that a single medico was delayed in any way shape or form by any Wigan player and I suggest you pack in this silly line of false accusations as they just didn't. As for stretcher time - entirely a decision for the Wigan medical staff.


Now you have explained it, I can explain your mistake.
You said:

You meant to say:

The new "intended" meaning - that I won't admit it was tasteless etc "purely because it was a Leeds player" is just silly. My comments are considered not partisan, and would apply to any player from any club. Moreover I like and rate McGuire as a player and have nothing against him so if that is what you meant then I have no clue how you would possibly justify thinking that.