Ospreylian
Academy Player
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 472
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Sweet mother of **** you're being a twat here.
Healy stamped on his ankle yes , worst case scenario it's a broken ankle , dangerous play cynical and deserving of punishment nor arguments here.
Warburton picked up player flips him onto neck/ upper back - worst case scenario = death. Yes there was malice in the hit yes there was intent. You don't accidentally let go of the man and fire him head first into the ground after lifting the ball carrier.
Yeah it was a bit foolish...
So you're actually going to call me a twat on a forum debate that was pretty civil to begin with? You're mature aren't you. The real posters on TRF don't have to resort to such petty melodrama.
The only reason it wasn't a broken ankle is because Cole is built like a BSH, and he is big boned. If it had been Flood it far more likely would have been a broken ankle, in which case most people would be viewing this entirely differently. Also, Warburton didn't "fire him head first into the ground". He took him up into the air past his shoulders, realised that was dangerous, got caught between two minds and stupidly dropped him. It was by no means a malicious offence though. I don't have a problem with players committing those sort of non-malicious offences once and then learning from their mistake, like Warburton has. What I DO have a massive problem with is players who obviously act in a way that is dangerous to others ON PURPOSE (some people don't seem to read that part in my comments), such as needless stamping, eye gouging, kicking etc. I don't think it is at all unrealistic to expect players to play inside the rules.
And in response to this comment from donmcdazzle:
"Sorry for picking on you mate but I just love this comment people always use. Pretty much everything in a rugby match is assault if done on the street. Imagine tackling some random person on the footpath, or running into someone and bumping them off.. You'd be in huge trouble."
Firstly I obviously have no qualms with people disagreeing with me, as long as they don't have the idiocy to call me a "twat". Of course everything in rugby is not assault, that is not at all what I mean. Do the IRB rules and regulations allow for dangerous play such as stamping with force or eye gouging? No, of course not. Tackling is something that is part of the game and is expected of all players. It is something all players know is going to happen to them and they agree that they will allow this to happen to them when they sign up to do rugby at the age of 8 or 9. The physicality is not at all what I have a problem with. It seems like lots of people have completely missed the point. Just because you're allowed to tackle, does not make it acceptable to stamp. I don't understand what is so hard to get?