RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:You have proof then?

I don't need any - your definition of what a fact is, is pure bollocks.

I know of at least 4 clubs where they were chatting amongst the playing staff about Sarries being able to offer higher wages, I cannot believe that was not happening at 8 other clubs including Sarries. I'd concede the players might not have know what was specifically happening, but only through ignorance, and as thick as many of them probably are even then it's wilful ignorance. And either that matters because cheating in sport matters, or it doesn't.

Sarries have had their sanction and that's fine, though what happens if there is no Championship next season? And then there's the question of playing for your country which comes with a lot f honour and prestige. For myself I'd certainly be picking all those Sarries players again, just after some minor admonishments and in the case of Farrell stripping him of the captaincy

From what I heard the suspicion of Sarries bending the salary cap rules goes back at least 8 years. I asked someone at Glaws why Mako wasn't going there and was told, Sarries were paying way over what they could offer, and it was because Sarries were well over the cap.

No evidence to support it, but given this contact knew what Glaws were offering, and what Makos agent asked for, he was pretty well informed. But there was no evidence to get them for it.

If other clubs suspected it then the players must have also had similar suspicions.

You guys keep throwing round words like “evidence” and “proof”. Haven’t you watched the news recently? We’re well beyond that. Stop living in the past.

Let's face it, Daly (who I rate as one of the best wingers in world rugby) did not leave Wasps and sign for Saracens for the same pay. Using him as an example, I'd suggest he can stick with Saracens on gardening leave and earn mega-bucks OR, if he values playing for England, he can move on loan, earn less and show he values his international status.

Jones and the blazers will take another view. What a fu¥¥ing surprise!

twitchy wrote:

Ok, so I've forgotten, is Farrell actually banned for any of the Eng games? And if so, should I be getting suitably excited about the prospect of Devoto actually getting some gametime? Or is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and not select him for the squad?

Beasties wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Ok, so I've forgotten, is Farrell actually banned for any of the Eng games? And if so, should I be getting suitably excited about the prospect of Devoto actually getting some gametime? Or is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and not select him for the squad?

No, he's not banned. And Devoto will probably get another 4 caps and another 9 minutes.

Puja

I'd like England to select the best players who are available for England training camps, matches, and that.

Oakboy wrote:Jones and the blazers will take another view. What a fu¥¥ing surprise!

Honestly, I find your attitude far more ‘blazer like’. Trying to defend some unwritten, holier-than-thou moral code by banning players who have quite literally committed no crimes or broken any rules.

But surely you know it’s ALL Eddie Jones fault. Saracens, COVID-19, all of it. He’s the mastermind behind all of the world’s woes and the worst coach in the universe.

I'll accept the mod's request to say no more.

Which Tyler wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:You have proof then?

I don't need any - your definition of what a fact is, is pure bollocks.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

It is not known, nor proved to be true. Thus it is factually incorrect.

Now what was that you were saying about bollocks?

Anyway, Ollie Lawrence is a decent shout. He’s got a touch of individual brilliance that stands out, and exposure to the squad should help him develop further.

I’d say playing in the championship should give some pause for thought. But on balance I’d think they’d be a lot fresher and better for it.

If we're going to start casting people out for cheating them we're going to start running very light on props and open sides.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Fact: a thing that is true, whether or not it is known or proven.

FTFY.

Otherwise, by your definition, gravity wasn't factual before Newton observed and defined it - nor were the laws of thermodynamics.
By your definition, a Geocentric universe was factual before Gallileo
etc
etc


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existence
b: an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3: the quality of being actual

Absolutely no mention of "the opinion of a designated authority"



ETA: Sorry Puja - I know you've asked us to drop it, but if we can't even agree on what a word means

Which Tyler wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Fact: a thing that is true, whether or not it is known or proven.

FTFY.

Otherwise, by your definition, gravity wasn't factual before Newton observed and defined it - nor were the laws of thermodynamics.
By your definition, a Geocentric universe was factual before Gallileo
etc
etc


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existence
b: an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3: the quality of being actual

Absolutely no mention of "the opinion of a designated authority"



ETA: Sorry Puja - I know you've asked us to drop it, but if we can't even agree on what a word means

OK, so you really want to keep this going.......fair enough, we can keep defining the word fact and continue to show that your opinion of complicity is in no way factually correct. It is, at best, an assumption. Anyway.....as you want to keep digging this hole lets help you get deeper.

Does it have actual existence? Well, the only thing outside of the people directly involved, that we have to go on beyond our own assumptions, is the findings of the review, which stated that there was no suggestion, or evidence of complicity on behalf of the players. That is not saying that they haven't looked for evidence, but that there is no evidence. So, that'll be a no then. Just for clarity, it doesn't have actual existence in any way that we can determine. You can think differently, but that doesn't change things.

Does it have objective reality? To have objective reality it must exist. See above.....

Does it have the quality of being actual? Again, see above.

We can keep going if you like, but your inability to in any way show your opinion as factually correct isn't going to change. You assumptive opinion of their complicity is factually incorrect as far as in any way we could possible determine.




Anyway, just for info, the definition of opinion is as follows: 1A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Happy to help.

What of alternative facts?

Digby wrote:What of alternative facts?

Which Tyler wrote:ETA: Sorry Puja - I know you've asked us to drop it, but if we can't even agree on what a word means

I mean, you've now moved on from accusing people of things onto a very pedantic semantic argument which is pretty unlikely to result in Hammy getting sued. So while I'm still bored to tears with it, you have technically fulfilled my request - good job!

Puja

I have to say, the more I see of him, the more I like himon and off the field.
https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/r ... hip-676464

Ruaridh McConnochie: ‘I used to pick up glasses in a club – we are lucky to play rugby as a job’
Bath’s leggy wing gives a refreshing dose of perspective as this strangest of Premiership seasons comes to a close
...

Which Tyler wrote:I have to say, the more I see of him, the more I like himon and off the field.
https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/r ... hip-676464

Ruaridh McConnochie: ‘I used to pick up glasses in a club – we are lucky to play rugby as a job’
Bath’s leggy wing gives a refreshing dose of perspective as this strangest of Premiership seasons comes to a close
...

What's your playing assessment of him Which? I was a bit mystified as to why Eddie wanted him in the WC squad as I hadn't seen anything to get excited about at that time. Since the season has resumed I've been very impressed, he looks a different player to me to the one that went to the WC. Bath playing well is obviously a factor now but also I didn't see that many Bath games pre-WC and prob saw the ones where he was quiet of course. You watch him more regularly so what's your assessment?

IMO he was the form winger before the RWC, and wasn't even slightly surprised that he was looked at. He's also always (seemed) had a good attitude, which we know Eddie likes.
Ahead of the RWC I always felt that people who were surprised at his inclusion simply hadn't been paying attention. It only took about a month to overtake Rocco in the pecking order.
I still think FB is a more natural position for him (his handling is wasted on the wing) but he's also good put wide.
He came back from the RWC nursing an injury of his own and seemwd... jaded early season.

Excellent under the high ball, excellent handling, excellent attitude. Reading of the game seems to have come on leaps and bounds

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Do you see him as the next cab off the rank? Or Umaga, Smith, Sheedy . . ?

Sheedy called up for Wales now so no longer an EQP.

Well at least Sheedy and Lloyd will count against Bristols EQP.
Shame about Sheedy looks very talented.