Because even if it had have been given we still scored more points that you which is still the aim of the game.

I had had little time for Cummings since he sent Penguin off against Saints in the 1998 play-offs (subsequently ruled "no case to answer"icon_wink.gif and did not penalise, let alone send off, Aitcheson for his blatant trip on Robbie shortly after. Effectively handed the game to Saints, when we were ahead at the time.

May he live in interesting times.

Agreed.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me on the quotes that you read that came from Stuart Cummings? The T&A yesterday printed an apology regarding this issue. They deny it themselves so why wouldn't I. You should photocoy that too in the interests of consistency or are you selective in what you believe.

Maybe you should learn the definition of libel. But then again......

Must admit seems someone has rattled your cage - maybe your username gives an indication why?

In the interest of balance, I saw the article and there were basically three issues IIRC:

1. Statement that Cummings had acknowledged to Macca that a wrong decision was made over the Langley no-try, and that two high shots by HKR should have been penalised;

2. Suggestion - but if IIRC no definitive statement - that wrong decisions in our previous match - had been likewise acknowledged. The example of Tadulala being taken out in the air when Cas scored a "try" was indicated;

3. The clear statement that Cummings had rung Macca to apologise.

Now the T&A apology (which was clearly in "requirement-to-avoid-libel" speak) was in respect of the third item.

The apology article effectively confirmed that the RFL was acknowledging item 1 took place since it stated this and there was no suggestion that Cummings had not spoken to Macca else the apology would have made that clear too.

Item 2 always looked to me like the T&A adding 2+2 to make 42, and the apology was silent on that issue other than to confirm no apology was made.

Have you read the original article? If so, you will know all this and will understand the reaction of those who read it (especially given the history of Bradford being on the wrong end of wrong ref calls at crucial times). In that case, I'd suggest your post owes more to either knowing more about this issue than you will or can say - or a degree of partisanship?

And if you have not read it, its hard to understand why you feel qualified to come on here and lecture us about it?

I shouldnt need to enlighten you if you've read it.

I said McNamara and cummings as it was McNamara quoting (or paraphrasing) Cummins and so my implication was fine IMO for a quick snippet on a public forum where no serious legal points are (were) being made.

The T&A should (and have) be the ones apologising if they have been asked to on legitimate grounds by any party affected, not me. And they apologise for printing it and possibly the semantics involved, but thats not to say the conversation did not occur or carry the implications suggested by McNamara, thats a different thing altogether and is a perfectly valid point to argue/discuss on this forum, unless you are a fool.

I cant copy and paste the T&A apology because it didn't get electronically published, Adeybull kindly reproduced the salient points as you will know if you've read the above thread. I dont feel the need to type repeated nonsense unlike some.

I do know the defintion of libel thank you, and defamatition of character, which is why I'm not going to type what I think of you.

So kindly take your condecending views and rattled cage and give it back to Mr Cummings you next see him.