It really isnât. Thereâs an argument to be made regarding the physical nature of the infringement with the opposing player.
Diarmuid Connolly had far less grounds for appeal, along with loads of priors, and he was successful with his case.
1 Like
The facts speak for themselves.
You spent an age arguing facts.
âJim Bobâ is not that kind of player
And I continued to argue the facts based in the correct rules.
The only difference was the length of suspension I believe.
You argued against facts.
The audit trail doesnât lie.
A lad can easily lose it on the field, itâs the simpletons who continue to make a hero out of him for it that is the worst. I heard he rang Davy immediately that night begging for forgiveness, which of course Davy granted onto him.
Iâd say he is ashamed of himself for it. A horrible trampish act nonetheless
I see audit trail is your new mantra.
We must start a thread to keep track of you lunatic mantras.
You canât have managers runing on the field every time thereâs a call by th refZ
Indeed Joe but you canât be giving them an 8 week ban when it might be that the offence warranted a 4 week ban either.
The audit trail says you changed tack after you got caught out.
It most certainly does not.
I recognised my error, apologised, and based my argument thereafter on the correct rule.
Youâre lying again.
I donât want to be an enabler for you to deny the holocaust, all I will say is the audit trail says you are an ass.
If you want to post the relevant points in thid thread where you believe I lied or changed my argument fire away.
If not jog on.
The audit trail is about 30 posts long.
Like I said. Show proof or not on.
Itâs ok to admit you were mistaken. No one will judge you for it.
Bit rich from the lad who is arguing facts to demand proof, isnât your modus operandi to argue proof?
All I will say is that I will not enable you to deny the holocaust any further, the audit trail speaks for itself. I encourage other posters to read it and make their own judgement.
That is all.
So youâve nothing to back up what youâre saying despite the âaudit trailâ been thirty posts long.
Youâre full of nothing but silly mantras and statements you canât back up.
The audit trail is there, people can make their own judgement. The audit trail is my proof and youâre denying it - quelle surprise.
Lucky we have some accountants on here for looking at audit trails. I hear accountants are suppose to be experts on audit trails. They would need to be to follow audit trails on here. 
Itâs almost funny that you think you can cut and paste some baseless allegations repeatedly, fail to back them up with any hard evidence or facts and yet believe youâve proved a point.