No surprises that you don't understand the difference between being charged with something and being found guilty.

Bless.



[iBillyRhino wrote:I'm sure Mr Lima's tackling technique will be commented on and judged in the fullness of time, but tell me Andy, which part of forcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player Grade: B are you having difficulty with?



If it helps, the clue is in the words "unacceptable risk"[/i



I think the first 17 words would indicate that I am well aware of the differences between charged and guilty, but that was not what you were asked.



So, once again Andy.....which part of forcefully makes contact with the leg of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle, in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player, are you having difficulty with?

If you claim to realise the difference then why use a CHARGE as evidence?



We all know that everyone who has every been charged with something is subsequently found guilty don't we?



Now which bit of that do you find so difficult to understand?

i maintain my point.........if 2 guys are tackling a player round the body, a 3rd SHOULD come in and take the legs.

they teach u7s that.



ref hadnt called "held"......so what Lima did was perfectly legal.



works other way round too...if 2 players are tackling with 1 round the legs, and one round the waist, i would expect a 3rd to jump in and clamp the ball carrying arms to stop the offload?...or will we get charged next time we do that as well??

The bit where you attempt to link charge to evidence. Serious question Andy, is English your native language?



The reason I ask is a Charge is a formal accusation.



Evidence will be data presented to the RFL as proof of the facts in issue....testimonies from the Ref and linesmen...Video, with all the different camera angles etc.



That's Evidence, and upon which the RFL will base its judgement.



The Charge, which is something completely different,

is what he will have to answer too.



So, for the 3rd time of asking....which part of the charge are you still struggling to comprehend?

You get the same clue as Andy....."unacceptable risk"



Let's see if the penny drops and who can work out why he was charged.....note CHARGED...not convicted as yet. And wittering on about ifs and buts simply provides a distraction, and merely stumps the easily confused.

So basically you don't know the difference - which we all knew anyway, but thanks for proving yet again your new obsession with us since becoming champions.



The disciplinary will actually base their decision tonight on the charge and evidence brought by the RFL review panel AND Wigan and Lima's response to it. Being charged and any evidence the RFL have proves nothing at the moment which is something you continually fail to understand.



Others may not know this, but it's the Easter holidays for Leeds schools starting this week - co-incidence?

Don't worry Billy, you'll never get a straight answer because Andy has a coping mechanism for when someone says something he doesn't like about his poor victimised Wigan...



He picks a word at random and then argues endlessly about it's meaning to avoid having to challenge the actual point being made...in your case it is evidence/charged in my case it was held



...it's like a dumbed down strawman argument with all the subtlety removed

You're right it explains why you have nothing better to do

Bless - Omar and Billy doing a tag team. They're whining on the Leeds board as well about this board like a couple of pre-pubescent girls.

Don't start swinging your handbag now because you don't understand the word held.



As usually you couldn't be more wrong - no change there on the evidence of the last few days.



As Billy should know given he's been over these boards like a rash since we became champions (notice the link?), I'm probably the last poster on here who plays the victimisation card and had many arguments with Wigan posters where I defend the Lima and Tomkins verdicts and punishments. So that extremely poor attempt of yours is quite simply wrong, not to mention embarrassing. If you want to continue that line I'm happily put up the links to embarrass you further if you want?



At the game on Friday I thought it was a bad one, but having looked at the replays actually think Lima was hard done to, but will accept whatever the verdict is later, and if found guilty certainly won't suggest it is part of some grand RFL conspiracy. There's a few people who obviously don't have the wit to see that we've just had one side of the argument at this stage, yet are using that as evidence of guilt, without realising that Wigan and Lima put their case later. At that stage the merits or otherwise of the tackle can be debated further, however when you're a Whino on a mission who still can't believe they didn't win on Friday it might take more than 4 days to get over it.

whether we are right to support lima or not, the rate the RFL are going we will be playing tick rugby league in a few years, the fans will have fooked off by then and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.