Quote ="Phuzzy"No it isn't. That is [uyour[/u definition. Not the official one according to the rules of the game. I could more justifiably say it [uisn't[/u reckless by definition of him being commited. Of course, none of us have the right to present either as fact as it is purely opinion. At least have the decency to not make things up and post them as fact. There is nowhere in the rule book (or indeed anywhere else) where a tackle of this nature is deemed 'reckless'. In fact the only thing the judiciary could comment on was the fact that O'Loughlin's shoulder caught Robinson's face was 'careless'. Not the tackle itself mind. They actually ruled that the contact was justifiable. How in God's name is that 'reckless'? He's entitled to smash Robinson to the ground with as much force as he is able to muster. '"
No, its the definition of the word reckless, thats what it means, it isnt an opinion, there's a book you can look at called a dictionary, it will tell you that reckless means.
to be indifferent to the consequence (the consequence being he committed and illegal tackle, which even you in your oh so precious attempts to defend him, admit he did) he was reckless.
Quote Then what are you arguing about? The referee's decision was that the tackle was a little late. That's all. Nothing else. Zip. '"
Thats fine, we can accept that, and when there are maybe one or two tackles that are just a little high on O'loughlin, a bit of niggle on the floor that goes a little too far, we can accept it when the referees dont send off the huddersfield players cant we?
Quote
No it isn't. He isn't the one charged with deciding what is reckless or not. Neither should he be. That is the referee's job. What the hell fantasy world do you live in? '"
if he isnt, he shouldnt really be the one in charge of making sure his players arent reckless with their tackles on the wigan players should he? After all, who is he to judge? If Keith Mason catches O'loughlin with a high tackle that is a little reckless its nothing really to do with Brown is it?
Quote You can't acidentally punch someone! As for proving there was intent...er...that is exactly the point! If Nathan Brown announces to the world that he intends (see that word? Look it up and you'll find that it has the same derivative as intent!
) to exact retribution, the burdon of proof has been removed. It's an admission. Or is that another word you don't understand?'" It was an admission of an act yet to happen. On this basis you now want to assume that any incident was deliberate and pre-meditated. Brown can always deny he asked for retribution for each specific incident, and treat us all like fools. A little like O'loughlin can pretend he really really really thought he was going to catch Robinson in time, and it really was an attempt to tackle the player on the ball, and everyone else can do the same, which is kind of what is happening right now. You seem to want to punish Brown for the heinous crime of being honest.
Quote
I know you're struggling with the intricasies of the English language but that is how you illustrate an inconsistancy. Comparing and contrasting what you said to the actual thing you were supposed to be defending. Do keep up. '"
except you didnt do that, your repeated what i said, then said something completely irrellevant
Quote
I'll ask you again, who decides what is late? Give me your definition of what constitutes late and also how you would prevent players offloading the ball prior to every tackle, even if it goes to the floor, knowing it would result in a penalty for his team (according to your rule all late tackles would be illegal regardless of intent, commitment to the tackle etc.) and also resulting in a ban for the opposition player?'"
the rules do. They are fairly clear.
And i really cant explain it any simpler that im not advocating bans, im advocating we are lenient with late challenges, and lenient with a bit of retribution, let the game keep itself honest.
But if we are going to clamp down on the retribution as you wish, then we should also clamp down on plays like O'loughlins
Quote
No, I don't want bans handing out for every little thing at all. It's you who is advocating the bans. In fact please quote where I said I wanted bans at all. The only thing I have done is point out the hypocrisy of bleating about the tough stuff and then advocating that your own players do it in retribution.
'"
you have massively mis-understood. i will try again
if we dont bleat about the 'tough' stuff (though i struggle to see what is tough about a forward throwing himself at a prone player like Robinson) then we dont bleat about reasonable retribution
if we bleat about reasonable retribution we bleat about the 'tough' stuff
Quote Again, please feel free to quote where I said this. Or are you now resorting to putting words in my mouth as your argument has more holes than a swiss cheese!'"
here
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=455569&start=75
Quote Sorry but that isn't even English.'"
I can assure you it is. There is just a word missing, most intelligent people would have understood that
Quote In fact the same can be said for any aspect of the game. Or do you think players only get injured as a result of this particular aspect of the game?'"
ill just quote the next part, which was the relevant part, which for some reason you separated
Quote ="SmokeyTA".
When committing a challenge like O'loughlin did there is always the chance the opposition player could be hurt or injured. Within the rules of the game O'loughlin has no responsibility, When he steps out of the rules of the game he takes total responsibility for the outcome. O'loughlin took the opportunity to put pressure on the player but was reckless as to whether or not he did this within the rules of the game. His primary concern wasnt to play within the rules of the game, nor was it for the safety of the opposition player. It was to put pressure on the playmaker, by any definition this is reckless
'"
Quote And this is why we have penalties, putting on report and ultimately the judiciary. Your point is?'"
That O'loughlin was reckless as to staying in the rules. I have said that a few times for you
Quote Not the opinion of the referee or any of the officials at the game. Neither the judiciary. Remind me again why you are the arbiter of what is reckless and what is not as I don't remember entering a parallel universe where you had been appointed. Or shall we actually tell it like it is and state that you are once again stating your opinion and arguing it as fact?'"
Nobody needs to be the arbiter of what is 'reckless' in this situation. It was 'reckless', reckless is a word with a definition. I'm not sure why you seem to think recklessness is some abstract concept that needs adjudication.
Quote First of all who are you to decide that his primary concern wasn't to play within the rules of the game? Are you privvy to information the rest of us aren't? Are you a personal friend of his or something? Please share this information and insight. I'm sure it would be most illuminating. Or are you once again stating your opinion as fact? Let me guess....
Secondly, there you go again with the "reckless by definition". No it isn't. Only in your opinion.'"
here is a link to a definition of the word reckless. Read it and you can catch up to the rest of us
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reckless
The consequence of his actions was to step outside the rules, by going outside the rules he lacked the proper caution to stay in them, therefore he was reckless as to whether he stayed inside them or not.
Quote
And what is it I don't understand again? As far as I can see there has been nothing in your argument thus far that has been in any way complex. '"
well the word reckless for one. You are correct, there is nothing I have put which is in any way complex. Which is why Im not sure why you are struggling so much
Quote
Why? Unless you're suggesting vigilantism is the correct response to anything you don't like then one does not follow the other at all. I have no problem with the rough stuff as such, and the inconsistancies of the judiciary aside,am quite satisfied that we have the mechanisms in place to deal with them. Where we differ is that you feel that you should be the one that decides what constitutes illegal play. I don't.
'"
I dont want decide what constitutes illegal play. Im happy to leave that to the refs and the rules. I just dont mind too much when a prop hands out a little 'rough justice' to keep the game honest. As long as it is kept safe and proportionate.
Quote Well actually you're advocating that [uas long as you are the one that gets to decide.[/u That's an entirely different thing.'"
You are right. It is an entirely different thing. One which up until now we werent even talking about. Im not giving penalties bans or wanting any rules changed. Im just saying the game has 'enforcers', coaches can use them, this isnt really a bad thing and certainly no worse than repeatedly throwing yourself at a prone player who cannot defend themselves. And all teams, at least try, to do both. I dont get the hypocrisy that Brown is somehow terrible for talking publicly about it
Quote Again, well done for putting words in my mouth. Where have I ever posted this view. My only viewpoint here is that [uin this particular instance[/u the correct punishment was given on the day. Brown's bleating and threats was soley concerned with the fact that he thought it was worth an 8 week ban and that he should be the one who gets to decide this. His subsequent comments were a poor effort to rationalise his ridiculous dummy spit. Had they not been he would have complained to the board or media when his own player escaped a ban last season. Maybe he could even have implemented the ban himself as it was entirely in his power to do so. Does he only feel this strongly when it's another team's player? Surely not!
'"
I didnt say you did say it.
I just said dont get precious about it being Wigan, maybe there literally is no criticism we can throw at them, maybe it was an accident in this case and maybe wigan dont target it, but 13 other teams do.
) to exact retribution, the burdon of proof has been removed. It's an admission. Or is that another word you don't understand?'"
