Durham Giant wrote:
WRONG.
So the arguement you are putting forward is that if the RFL look at something and find that person has no case to answer they are exonerated.
that sounds very reasonable to me.
So LOGICALLY when the RFL and stuart cummings, and the Sky team look at Huddersfield and find nothing wrong they are exonarated as well.
Except if you are Terry Matterson where you aer judge, Jury and executioner and do not let the facts get in the way.
So the arguement you are putting forward is that if the RFL look at something and find that person has no case to answer they are exonerated.
that sounds very reasonable to me.
So LOGICALLY when the RFL and stuart cummings, and the Sky team look at Huddersfield and find nothing wrong they are exonarated as well.
Except if you are Terry Matterson where you aer judge, Jury and executioner and do not let the facts get in the way.