Fair Is Fair

Those who condemned Horwill so vociferiously last week, must now condemn Vunipola.

Much as I think Vunipola is waste of (a lot of) space, I am not sure it was intentional. Watching it "live" as the TV pictures came in, it did look bad but when I saw another couple of angels on replay, I really don't think he knew that AAC was there until too late

He was probably just trying to regain his balance...  

Glorious empire you are the biggest hypocrite on these boards so you can't talk! I am surprised the mods humour you. I suppose having you as a performing neanderthal is entertaining to them.

No surprise there. No sauce for the gander this week. Hypocrisy at its best. I wonder if the IRB will step in.

They wont step in, yes you are really irritating, but the IRB won't be too worried about you trolling these boards, and we can easily deal with you ourselves. They will be making sure Horwill gets his well deserved ban though. Shame its too late for actual justice..

Are you vociferously condemning Vunipola, Glorious?

I'd like to see those who condemned Horwill justify that their inflammatory behaviour was not just a consequence of one eyed nationalistic zealotry by reacting to all suspected foul play incidents with the same level of contempt.

Apparently though, the majority here feel its only an issue if your own team are the alleged victims.

Answer the question Glorious. Are you now condemning Vunipola?

I will allow the citing commissioner And judiciary do their job, but it certainly looked ugly at the time.

But that's not the issue - I'm stunned by the silence from the apparent enthusiasts of clean fair play who made such a noise last week.

It is the issue.  You think it looks ugly....you didn't think anything happened in the Horwill incident ..."nothing to see here folks, move along"

So yeah, you're right.  One week one view, another week a special thread to highlight an incident.

Vunipola's needs a closer look by the citing guys. You wouldn't and didn't support the same opinion last week.

And my opinion was Validated by the judiciary - lets see if I'm 100% correct again this week. I suspect I will be.

Ironic though that so many of those so concerned with fair play have the exact opposite opinion when a Lions player is the perpetrator.

GloriousEmpire wrote:And my opinion was Validated by the judiciary - lets see if I'm 100% correct again this week. I suspect I will be.

Ironic though that so many of those so concerned with fair play have the exact opposite opinion when a Lions player is the perpetrator.

That wasn't the conclusion of the commissioner. He did see something, he did see the strike. His judgement was that he didn't think Horwil intended to strike AWJ. So, like I was putting to you last week, the judgement was about what was in horwill's mind...nice trick by the commissioner.

Vunipola will of course have the same defence now if he is cited. "Didn't mean a word of it, sir" So, will he be listened to if he is cited? Will all future players be able to say "I never meant a bit of it, sir"?

Is this post supposed to be about when AAC ran into Vunipola? Absolutely nothing wrong with it, there was no 'elbow' as Stuart Barnes seemed to think. Incidentally, did Vunipola run over Barnes' dog? Every time Barnes had a chance he was slating him, even right after winning penalties we would hear about how he could get carded, or how Grant needed to come on, or how illegal he was (former backs are of course great scrummaging experts). Barnes is a clown, the less he tries to act an expert on forward play the better.

Sigh. None so blind... As they say

GloriousEmpire wrote:Sigh. None so blind... As they say

I see