Albino Wolf 2 wrote:
Look at it again then!
I didn't mean to belittle a post sorry so I apologise for using the word rubbish. But that was the worst I'd seen for a long time and to try and defend it my opinion is wrong.
I didn't mean to belittle a post sorry so I apologise for using the word rubbish. But that was the worst I'd seen for a long time and to try and defend it my opinion is wrong.
Wooooooooooooooa
Before we carry on, let's get one thing straight. I'm not debating whether it was a bad one or not, it is clear it is, he caught him in the jaw, there is no doubt.
What I'm questioning is, how do the RL know whether intent was there or not? There's only one person who can answer that question, every thing else is opinion.
Fakir's was very similar, yet according to the RL, that wasn't intentional, I want it explaining how they differentiate before they speak to all parties.
I don't know whether it was intentional or not, neither do you. I suggested, that as Westwoods head, at the time of collision, was to Carlaws right shoulder, he couldn't see where his arm hit and is it so easy to define whether it hit head, chest or shoulder from his perspective, on such an impact if you can't see.
He may not come across as the sharpest knife in the box, but I doubt any player would congratulate himself or others knowing they deliberately smashed his opponent in the face in that manner.
For you to suggest him hanging over him and giving him verbal, again, did he or didn't he, doesn't mean he intended to hit him in the face, as the charge implies. I've seen many a good and clean tackle result in a player on th floor receiving verbal by his tackler.
