rlOuch!rl

Check out the comments underneath the article as well. Football v Rugby eh ?

Whilst at work yesterday I got to speaking with David Hodgson and Alan fellows and they both said that although you couldn't see it it was the collision and not the heel that caused it as the blood was flowing before he hit the ground.
If folks choose not to believe that then they can feel free.

No, you're wrong.

That part of his head doesn't make contact in the tackle and, like all deep wounds, it wasn't bleeding at all for a short while. It was Piper's heel, no doubt about it.

I'm not the one that is wrong.
Players on the field and part of the team that carried him off are apparently.

They also stated it WASN'T his heel.

But again believe what ever you want.

It doesn't matter if you're an RLFans mod OR an Hull Kingston Rovers player, you only have to watch the telly.

I'll believe the evidence as it's displayed.

DId he stitch it up himself. Jesus wept. Anyway scrumcap and a couple of paracetamol he'll be right.

I can empathise with him I got a paper cut on my tongue once. Very painful.

They stated that the TV didn't show it as it was and that the collision caused it.
Like I said right at the start believe what you want.

BTW Go back and read the thread again on what my view was about what caused it.
You will then see that I was in fact of the view that the heel caused it.
So when you said I was wrong for just stating what others were saying you were in fact speaking out of turn unless you were saying that I hadn't spoken to said individuals in which case I am happy to swear on my children, my wife, my family and my home that I did.

Remind me where David Hodgson and the staff that carried him off the pitch were in relation to the incident.

The TV didn't show it as it was? The camera never lies.

All I ever did was state what they had said.
I did also say that you can believe what ever you want as well.

You did however wrongly state that I was wrong when that wasn't my opinion is was commenting on.

You made a statement followed by "if folks chose not to believe that...", this is insinuating that you're sold on their story and have changed your mind.

Stop being an idiot.

Everyone can see the contact in the tackle is in the wrong place to cause such damage. Taking into account that the heel then is seen to practically stamp the part of Lincoln's head where the laceration is, I'd say that's case closed.

Hodgson, 40 yards away? Staff that carried him off, 50-70yards away? Camera, in on the action.

Then you would be incorrect AGAIN.
It isn't my fault that you wrongly assumed what I meant.
Clearly I'm not going to get an apology for your wrong assumption though.

So what do you think caused the laceration?

His heel as I stated right at the start.

All I did was say what they had said.

Oh, in future you should follow up with "but I think they're talking anus".

Then it wouldn't make you look like a massive vagina doing a u-Turn.

Or you could ask me outright what I meant instead of jumping to conclusions.