Quote: ladyref "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?
