Quote: TheElectricGlidingWarrior "More likely that you gave up on this debate when it became clear you were wrong and were defending an untenable position. No evidence of a Wigan tactic, no evidence of intentions, just angry accusations with a healthy dose of teenage petulance thrown in the mix. You know more about SATs than I do son, I'm 32. Maybe that's apparent from the way we conduct ourselves. Can you see the difference? Your childish insults aren't doing you any favours mate. Stop the petty squabbling and debate.
I'll ask again for some evidence of intent to injure, because it simply must exist for you to have formed such a solid opinion, right?
You seem to be saying that you know for a fact that none of the players involved in the three tackles accidentally completed the tackle in a way that caused or was part of a cause of injury, but yet again this is an opinion instead of fact. I could just as easily say I know for a fact that they did. These are just assertions, and without anything to support them they are worthless.
Your argument is based on 3 tackles which you claim is evidence of a tactic, yet any such tactic to intentionally injure opposition players would surely have produced far more evidence. It's more plausible that these injuries were accidental, and you've admitted not all illegal tackles are intentional, but maintain that these 3 were (even though they weren't all illegal, hey), yet you have failed to demonstrate intent over accident. Out of interest, can you show me the disciplinary charges for these tackles?'"
Again, your attempt to rephrase what has been said so it fits with what you would like to argue rather than what is actually there is quite silly.
