posted Feb 7, 2008

Quote from JT , says it all , now will you Welsh whingers accept that there was no malice intended

"It was fairly legitimate. It was just an unfortunate situation where I was quite low and got caught on the chin."

Thomas, capped 40 times, admits he has dished out such treatment, adding: "I'm certainly not going to complain about things like that.

"I have possibly high-tackled people so you can't expect to have double standards and moan about things when it happens to you. "

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 7, 2008

Cumbrian, can I also suggest that whingers of other nationalities also accept there was no malice.

Posters of other nationalities have expressed similar incorrect assumptions of malice, while there are a number of Welsh who weren’t making those incorrect assumptions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

>>> At last an acknowledgment from JW about his straight arm assault on JT - he says on the Beeb website...."I want to express myself but not the way I did last week" <<<


Maybe he was referring to his way of expressing himself by chucking horribly wayward passes at his closest rival for the 10 shirt the moment he came on for his debut...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

Cumbrian & Red Dragon

There is no "fact" re JW's intention there is only opinion - many say it was a premeditated assault and many disagree.

Just because the citing commissioner didnt cite doesnt mean JW didnt try to do it. Of one thing there is total clarity, he knocked JT out with a straight arm (premeditated or not) and JT had to leave the field and he doesnt do that easily. Note I don't call it a tackle - it wasnt under the definition of "tackle"; read the rules if you disagree.

The citing commissioner should also have banned Henderson; just coz I'm a Scot doesnt mean I dont think a Scot should be banned. Unlike you Mr Falcon I look at the situation and make my mind up, I dont support JW just coz its him.

But its a pity that this fuss has taken away from one of the worse performances by an England 10 in years; or were you blinded to that to ???

How he is picked again after that performance and a woeful RWC who knows - Geraghty, Lamb, Hodgson, Cipriani etc must be disgusted with the blind faith shown in him.

But Italy will be delighted.

Forza Italia !!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

Dabushman,
I have been commenting on the incident only , comments about the display having nothing to do with this and is discussed on other threads, I am not defending him because of who he is but because of how i see the incident in question and make my mind up on that basis alone ,of course I am not blinded to the performance of the team which was woeful , and in fact I do not believe as a lot of other English supporters do that we lost it in the 2nd half, we lost it in the 1st half by not finishing off opportunities and should have been well clear at half time, however the discussion was about the tackle , as for the accusation regarding the disgust of potential stand-offs that is pure conjecture.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

>>> I don't call it a tackle - it wasnt under the definition of "tackle"; read the rules if you disagree. <<<


Definition of a tackle:

A tackle occurs when the ball-carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

This tackle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tAi0nnz2Bo
utilised exactly the same trechnique and was 100% legal.

Or at least, no one complained at the time.


Anyone who thinks JW's tackle was illegal is either DESPERATE for something to complain about or has never watched or played rugby.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

>>> he knocked JT out with a straight arm (premeditated or not) <<<


No he didn't - the contact was at the shoulder/upper arm, which is where the contact is supposed to be made in a tackle.

The arm was swinging round the body of the tackled player.

See...

http://forum.planet-rugby.com/index.php?t=getfile&id=767&private=0

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

Hey juggler you non playing rugby man - 2 arms are required for a tackle - one straight arm is an "assault" - ask a copper........

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 9, 2008

The other arm was round the other side of Thomas, there to grab him, so a tackle.

Interesting how there's an article where Thomas says that he sees nothing wrong with the tackle and the BBC calls it "Thomas forgives Wilkinson's tackle" Forgive suggests Thomas thinks it was wrong but he accepts it. Nowhere is this suggested in the actual article

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 9, 2008

Of course it was wrong but credit to him for accepting it - great dignity and unlike some wanted the focus to be on a great win and not JW's assault.

add comment | complain about this comment