Quote: Phuzzy "No it isn't. That is your definition. Not the official one according to the rules of the game. I could more justifiably say it isn't reckless by definition of him being commited. Of course, none of us have the right to present either as fact as it is purely opinion. At least have the decency to not make things up and post them as fact. There is nowhere in the rule book (or indeed anywhere else) where a tackle of this nature is deemed 'reckless'. In fact the only thing the judiciary could comment on was the fact that O'Loughlin's shoulder caught Robinson's face was 'careless'. Not the tackle itself mind. They actually ruled that the contact was justifiable. How in God's name is that 'reckless'? He's entitled to smash Robinson to the ground with as much force as he is able to muster. '"
No, its the definition of the word reckless, thats what it means, it isnt an opinion, there's a book you can look at called a dictionary, it will tell you that reckless means.
to be indifferent to the consequence (the consequence being he committed and illegal tackle, which even you in your oh so precious attempts to defend him, admit he did) he was reckless.
Quote: Phuzzy "Then what are you arguing about? The referee's decision was that the tackle was a little late. That's all. Nothing else. Zip. '"
Thats fine, we can accept that, and when there are maybe one or two tackles that are just a little high on O'loughlin, a bit of niggle on the floor that goes a little too far, we can accept it when the referees dont send off the huddersfield players cant we?
Quote: Phuzzy "
No it isn't. He isn't the one charged with deciding what is reckless or not. Neither should he be. That is the referee's job. What the hell fantasy world do you live in? '"
if he isnt, he shouldnt really be the one in charge of making sure his players arent reckless with their tackles on the wigan players should he? After all, who is he to judge? If Keith Mason catches O'loughlin with a high tackle that is a little reckless its nothing really to do with Brown is it?
Quote:
Phuzzy " You can't acidentally punch someone! As for proving there was intent...er...that is exactly the point! If Nathan Brown announces to the world that he intends (see that word? Look it up and you'll find that it has the same derivative as intent! I can assure you it is. There is just a word missing, most intelligent people would have understood that
Quote: Phuzzy "In fact the same can be said for any aspect of the game. Or do you think players only get injured as a result of this particular aspect of the game?'"
ill just quote the next part, which was the relevant part, which for some reason you separated
Quote: Phuzzy ".
When committing a challenge like O'loughlin did there is always the chance the opposition player could be hurt or injured. Within the rules of the game O'loughlin has no responsibility, When he steps out of the rules of the game he takes total responsibility for the outcome. O'loughlin took the opportunity to put pressure on the player but was reckless as to whether or not he did this within the rules of the game. His primary concern wasnt to play within the rules of the game, nor was it for the safety of the opposition player. It was to put pressure on the playmaker, by any definition this is reckless
'"
Quote: Phuzzy "And this is why we have penalties, putting on report and ultimately the judiciary. Your point is?'"
That O'loughlin was reckless as to staying in the rules. I have said that a few times for you
Quote: Phuzzy "Not the opinion of the referee or any of the officials at the game. Neither the judiciary. Remind me again why you are the arbiter of what is reckless and what is not as I don't remember entering a parallel universe where you had been appointed. Or shall we actually tell it like it is and state that you are once again stating your opinion and arguing it as fact?'"
Nobody needs to be the arbiter of what is 'reckless' in this situation. It was 'reckless', reckless is a word with a definition. I'm not sure why you seem to think recklessness is some abstract concept that needs adjudication.
Quote: Phuzzy "First of all who are you to decide that his primary concern wasn't to play within the rules of the game? Are you privvy to information the rest of us aren't? Are you a personal friend of his or something? Please share this information and insight. I'm sure it would be most illuminating. Or are you once again stating your opinion as fact? Let me guess....
Secondly, there you go again with the "reckless by definition". No it isn't. Only in your opinion.'"
here is a link to a definition of the word reckless. Read it and you can catch up to the rest of us
And what is it I don't understand again? As far as I can see there has been nothing in your argument thus far that has been in any way complex. '"
well the word reckless for one. You are correct, there is nothing I have put which is in any way complex. Which is why Im not sure why you are struggling so much