Re: 2 Reasons we lost that game. : Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:34 pm  

wireone wrote:

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle bruntarse if you ask me. We will just have to agree to differ. My previous post was meant to infer that Goodway was being a bit hypocritcal in criticising Les Boyd, as Goodway once flattened Cullen with a late shot to the head from behind and then stood on his hand as he walked past him.
In any case my comments were aimed at Warrington fans not people who have nothing better to do but surf other club's boards offering unwanted pearls of wisdom.

In what way have I been hypocritical? I've quite plainly stated that you either believe one or the other and don't pick and choose according to which shirt they are wearing. My view is I like the enforcers in the game whether they be MM, Westwood, Morley, Skerrett or anyone else and regardless of whose shirt they are wearing. In my opinion they add to our game and the sports folklore. Hope that's clear enough for you.

As for the last sentence; you do realise that these are open forums, don't you? You also realise that the topic I was replying to in this instance (yours) was about a Wigan player? You also realise that the two teams had just played each other? If any of those points are confusing you, just let me know and I'll explain the principle of free and open discussion in a democratic society for you. I'm sure you'll find it illuminating!

Re: 2 Reasons we lost that game. : Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:36 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

If I run the ball in, and get hit I have some control to how I prep my body for both impact and how I land, the 3rd man in I have zero control, I'm locked into a position and just have to accept how my body reacts.
Yes there will be times nothing happens but players shouldn't have to be in a position in which they have zero control on anything.
A spear tackle is the same and that is banned.

I understand a normal tackle can injure but calculated risk againt unnecessary risk are different.
McIllorum has form but by no means is it unique to him, all teams do it, and why wouldn't they as it isn't illegal.
I don't get angry about it as it's in the rules but like I say I wince and just think it is unnecessary and should be taken out, after all the player is 99 times out of a hundred tackled anyway and this is a tactic to just slow down the ruck.

Point taken Yed and I respect your opinion on this. I don't necessarily agree but it's a fair viewpoint...

Re: 2 Reasons we lost that game. : Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:51 pm  

WazzaWire wrote:

Think most of us will agree that Bennie was lucky to get away with that one...but I find it amazing how may occasions there have been this year where Wigan fans have continually used this single incident to justify there own team's numerous instances of thuggery.

That was exactly my point though mate. The examples from Thursdays match were not 'thuggery' as being described. Unlike the Westwood one they were the type of thing that happens in absolutely every game from every team, including yours. There was a late challenge (not high or shoulder btw) and a perfectly legal challenge as third man in (not a cannonball challenge as being claimed) and this has been further highlighted by the fact that neither incident was subject to a disciplinary. That's why I and others chose to contrast it with the Westwood offence in the GF. It's certainly not the only offence from Warrington players (unless you're trying to claim that no Warrington player has ever put in a late challenge or a legal third man tackle, of course!), just one that illustrates the difference between playing the game tough and to it's limits and outright 'thuggery' if that's the term you wish to use. Also, for my own part, I was trying to show the overreaction given that most of the posters complaining about MM didn't post to condemn a FAR worse incident when it was from their own player. I thought they were both valid points worth making. Most, if not all, teams have players who walk the line. Westwood, MM for us, Ablett for Leeds and so on. It's part of the game and (imo obviously) long may it continue!

Re: 2 Reasons we lost that game. : Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:19 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

In what way have I been hypocritical? I've quite plainly stated that you either believe one or the other and don't pick and choose according to which shirt they are wearing. My view is I like the enforcers in the game whether they be MM, Westwood, Morley, Skerrett or anyone else and regardless of whose shirt they are wearing. In my opinion they add to our game and the sports folklore. Hope that's clear enough for you.

As for the last sentence; you do realise that these are open forums, don't you? You also realise that the topic I was replying to in this instance (yours) was about a Wigan player? You also realise that the two teams had just played each other? If any of those points are confusing you, just let me know and I'll explain the principle of free and open discussion in a democratic society for you. I'm sure you'll find it illuminating!

Read my post again in isolation instead of combining it with several others and then look up the meaning of hypocritical and you may find that illuminating.

[Uncle Rico]

Re: 2 Reasons we lost that game. : Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:30 pm  

In an effort to get back to the original question, the 2 reasons we lost it were Wane's half time team talk and a THAT pass.

All this stuff about Mickey Mac this and SOL that.....if we had come back in that manner then we'd have been chuffed to bits. Hopefully the TS mantra of learning through defeat will pay dividends in the Play Offs where we might show some over due bottle

NTW

Re: 2 Reasons we lost that game. : Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:48 am  

wireone wrote:

Read my post again in isolation instead of combining it with several others and then look up the meaning of hypocritical and you may find that illuminating.

hypocritical:
/ˌhɪpəˈkrɪtɪkl/

adjective

adjective: hypocritical

behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.



Examples

adjective :

1. of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretence of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess:
"The parent who has a “do what I say and not what I do” attitude can appear hypocritical to a child."


2. possessing the characteristics of hypocrisy :
"Isn't a politician hypocritical for talking about human dignity while voting against reasonable social programs?"

I think both examples fully illustrate why your post regarding Boyd and McIlorum are hypocritical. You pretend to abhor the 'dirty' play of one whilst quite obviously delighting in that of the other. Care to apply the same to my posts?

Re: 2 Reasons we lost that game. : Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:50 am  

Uncle Rico wrote:

In an effort to get back to the original question, the 2 reasons we lost it were Wane's half time team talk and a THAT pass.

All this stuff about Mickey Mac this and SOL that.....if we had come back in that manner then we'd have been chuffed to bits. Hopefully the TS mantra of learning through defeat will pay dividends in the Play Offs where we might show some over due bottle

NTW

Sorry for the above post keeping it off(ish) topic for longer than ideal. Couldn't agree more with your post.