WWW.RLFANS.COM
https://rlfans.com/forums/

Andy Wilson of the (Manchester) Guardian
https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=397451		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Omar Little [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Andy Wilson of the (Manchester) Guardian
What's his problem with Peacock - as a professional journalist maybe he should watch the match again (and notice that Perry throws the first punch - albeit one that is partially concealed by being one the blind side of the camera)...

First we have this in the match report...

Quote:Peacock earned himself a second trip to the sin bin for fighting in four matches this season with an attack on the Manly prop Josh Perry, which sparked a lengthy brawl and could land him in trouble when it is watched by the disciplinary authorities this week.


Quote:To be fair to Manly they could not be held responsible this time, as Peacock launched a series of punches at their prop Josh Perry for no visible reason. It seemed very harsh on Perry that he should be sin-binned with Peacock for his retaliation,


Then after Peacock is not in trouble with the disciplinary authorities we have this bitchy piece today

Is he just a bitter Lancastrian?

I notice the Guardian no longer allow comments on Wilson's articles...coincidence?
What's his problem with Peacock - as a professional journalist maybe he should watch the match again (and notice that Perry throws the first punch - albeit one that is partially concealed by being one the blind side of the camera)...

First we have this in the match report...

Quote:Peacock earned himself a second trip to the sin bin for fighting in four matches this season with an attack on the Manly prop Josh Perry, which sparked a lengthy brawl and could land him in trouble when it is watched by the disciplinary authorities this week.


Quote:To be fair to Manly they could not be held responsible this time, as Peacock launched a series of punches at their prop Josh Perry for no visible reason. It seemed very harsh on Perry that he should be sin-binned with Peacock for his retaliation,


Then after Peacock is not in trouble with the disciplinary authorities we have this bitchy piece today

Is he just a bitter Lancastrian?

I notice the Guardian no longer allow comments on Wilson's articles...coincidence?
Author:  rhinoms [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:33 am ]
Post subject: 
The thing with perry was that when he was one of the dummy runners he had been taking pot shots at our lads in particular burrow and ablett and he had an off ball discussion with bailey aswell.
I think peacock was lucky not to see red but he didn't dig perry unprovoked or without reason.
Andy wilson is similar to lockwood in the league weekly imo a lot of things they get right but when they rant they do tend to sound bitter.
Author:  G1 [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Strange double standards by the author. I don't necessarily disagree with his comments about Peacock. There is an issue when its' twice in 4 games and he is lucky to escape sanction.

Why then, having taken such a stance against foul play, does he go on to describe Watmough's foul on Burrow as "a spectacular Anthony Watmough tackle". It was a foul that was penalised.

Therefore I have concluded that the article is biased and the author is a fekktard.
Author:  rhinoms [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
G1 wrote:Strange double standards by the author. I don't necessarily disagree with his comments about Peacock. There is an issue when its' twice in 4 games and he is lucky to escape sanction.

Why then, having taken such a stance against foul play, does he go on to describe Watmough's foul on Burrow as "a spectacular Anthony Watmough tackle". It was a foul that was penalised.

Therefore I have concluded that the article is biased and the author is a fekktard.

:lol: :lol:
A quality conclusion sir!
Author:  McLaren_Field [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tony Smith had it nailed on the radio commentary during the fight when he pointed out that Perry had been niggling in the tackles for ten minutes leading up to the altercation with Peacock - its a forwards thing, they are bears of very little brains.
Author:  andrew1211 [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well at least he might have got the facts nearly right. Was I mistaken or in Saturday's Daily Mirror in the write up before the match the main picture was of Paul Wellens purporting to be Sinfield?!
Author:  tad rhino [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
McLaren_Field wrote:Tony Smith had it nailed on the radio commentary during the fight when he pointed out that Perry had been niggling in the tackles for ten minutes leading up to the altercation with Peacock - its a forwards thing, they are bears of very little brains.


hey, i played in the forwards. though maybe you have a point :lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Jonesy's a Legend [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
was that when tries were worth 3 points and not 4? :lol:
Author:  totalloiner [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
McLaren_Field wrote:, they are bears of very little brains.


always get your retaliation in first!!
Author:  GCM1980 [ Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
McLaren_Field wrote:Tony Smith had it nailed on the radio commentary during the fight when he pointed out that Perry had been niggling in the tackles for ten minutes leading up to the altercation with Peacock - its a forwards thing, they are bears of very little brains.

I turned to my dad about 10 minutes before he got into the fight and said he's looking for it. He'd already chased Bailey round the pitch looking for a fight.

This will be Josh Perry the reformed character of course. He won't be getting into any trouble. Oh no.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/