2012 NRL Grand Final: Melbourne Storm v Canterbury Bulldogs
Cherry, your 2 page block of tripe was deleted because it was well off topic. Please keep your Manly-centric rants to The Rugby League General forum.Cherry_Poppins wrote:
Bet I get banned for defending myself lol
Your comment about Slater was inappropriate and unnecessary, and it was not clear that it was a joke. If you're going to take offence to Storm fans defending their player on a Storm oriented website, then I suspect you are in the wrong place.
However you're not being banned, so you lose your bet (for now).
We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately
Wasn't Stagg's hand on the left side of Billy's head?Mattpoet wrote:Or given a contract to write a sitcom pilot, seriously, once you've conceded he's made contact with his teeth, you've conceded he's guilty based on the supporting video evidence. Surely you claim it was Stagg's fingernail when he had him in the headlock if you want to be believed by anyone.
On second thoughts, if they don't have the imagination to come up with a convincing lie, maybe they need to go back to kindergarten and learn a) the importance of telling the truth and b) some creativity.
What a bunch of cretins!
Graham bit Billy's right ear.
Nah it was Bills left ear I'm sure of it. I can't see how it was anything but Graham's teeth tbh. Stagg was around the neck. Photos of Perrett "kicking" him were at the wrong angle. Graham is just full of....
Just a deliberately ridiculous example of a better defence that - 'he has crooked teeth which might have bbrushed the ear' .
Wouldn't his mouth guard have stopped incidental contact from drawing blood? Therefore he must have bitten with intent!
Wouldn't his mouth guard have stopped incidental contact from drawing blood? Therefore he must have bitten with intent!
TC wrote:Cherry, your 2 page block of tripe was deleted because it was well off topic. Please keep your Manly-centric rants to The Rugby League General forum.Cherry_Poppins wrote:
Bet I get banned for defending myself lol
Your comment about Slater was inappropriate and unnecessary, and it was not clear that it was a joke. If you're going to take offence to Storm fans defending their player on a Storm oriented website, then I suspect you are in the wrong place.
However you're not being banned, so you lose your bet (for now).
It was sad enough this Manly fool (troll) loitered around a Melbourne Storm forum for months of the season but even sadder he's still here in what is the off season. Have you no friends either on or offline? I dare say that's a no given you're still here.
Had a chat to *my* dentist today (based in NQ). He said he had seen numerous very similar bite marks from bush footy over the last 10 years.Mattpoet wrote:Just a deliberately ridiculous example of a better defence that - 'he has crooked teeth which might have bbrushed the ear' .
Wouldn't his mouth guard have stopped incidental contact from drawing blood? Therefore he must have bitten with intent!
It goes like this:
Wide open mouth encompasses ear,
Top teeth go over top of ear and teeth go down to where upper ear meets scalp. Mouth guard prevents any mark,
Lower teeth close on inside of ear (at approx the point wher back of ear meets scalp),
Uneven teeth - as described by 'expert dental witness' - cause jagged cut approx 1/3 way down ear.
That looks like what I saw...
We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately