Only if your gullible to believe in rugby gods in the first place !!!

Either way inferring, implying whatever. Phil Clarke has not in any way said that Danny Mcguire deserved to be injured and thats a fact. You must all be journalists with the way you twist peoples words

Oh no he didn't.

Nobody from Wigan is dressing or covering anything up. The fact is you cant see what isnt there!

Perhaps you don't want to see it, that at least i could understand.

If it was there i wouldnt have any choice but to see it, but unfortunatly for you and the Clarke bashing brigade it isnt

well come on prove it!!!!! show us where he said it .

Do you have a broken keyboard?

that would only be true if you didnt understand what the words inferring or implying meant.

Where he said what?

I am not Clarke bashing, point me to where I have said that. Clarke may even have a point that Mcguire deserves an injury for such an injustice. The fact he implies he deserves it is the point i'm trying to make. If you cannot see the implication in his statement then i'll waste no more time debating it with you because perhaps you are ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Maybe you should go and find out what the word "perhaps" means first before trying to take up residence in Dictionary Corner.

considering the little hissy fit you had over a picture which 'inferred' Phil Clarke's neck injury was punishment from the rugby gods i think you should be notifying the mods of your behaviour and asking for yourself to be banned.

After all you surely wouldnt want to expose yourself as a HUGE hypocrit would you

really? do you think an uncertain adverb removes the potential for offence?

per·haps/pərˈ(h)aps/Adverb
Used to express uncertainty or possibility

yes, its an uncertain adverb, thanks for repeating that for me,

Doesnt answer my question though does it? are you really naive enough to believe prefacing a statement with an uncertain adverb removes the potential for offence?

Even if he does imply he deserves it which he doesnt, theres a massive difference between implying something and actually stating something. People are actually slating Phil Clarke over this which amazes me

Then i again i shouldnt really be amazed as your all from Leeds and most of you have backed the dog which Jamie Peacock and Brian Mclennan have come out with this week.

Try these bits! as highlighted above .

You really need to get a grip of yourself

So we agree he didn't say he deserved it then. Thank God for that. Could have saved you about 1,000 posts this week.

So is Clarke saying then, by definition, there is a possibility Mcguire got what he deserved?

As well as possibly not.

Sorry guys i can't go on running around in circles like this. I suppose we will all have to agree to disagree on this one. Enjoy the game saturday.

no we dont, he quite clearly inferred Mcguire deserved his injury.

i wonder why you brought up the relevence of the word perhaps, implying that its prefacing of the statement in some way removed any offence, then danced around actually saying it. It seems very strange.

so lets try a different tack as you are so strangely averse to to saying that



As you brought it up why do you think the word perhaps is relevent?