: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:23 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

So it is in your mind then.
Why the hell didn't you just say so

The thing you need to ask yourself is why did Webb feel the need to stand up and punch him. It wasnt because Stanley piched his tuck shop money back in 1972.....

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:24 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

:lol: I shouldnt really say any more on the subject.

You on the panel again

Re: HKR - bravery and resilience in the face of adversity. : Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:24 pm  

berrigans bitch wrote:

Might be worth a dabble the following match though..I reckon Leeds may want to play/bitch(whoops) you again

The Post!

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:25 pm  

berrigans bitch wrote:

:lol: You on the panel again

No comment.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:25 pm  

MrPhilb wrote:

So you can't actually dicipher which part Gene touched be it his eyes or his nose yet it was a trade mark gouge?

Either way his hand had no business being there.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:28 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

No comment.

fooking pmsl..class

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:29 pm  

knocker norton wrote:

The thing you need to ask yourself is why did Webb feel the need to stand up and punch him. It wasnt because Stanley piched his tuck shop money back in 1972.....

Ah I see so we are saying stan had to have gouged Webb because he reacted are we?

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:30 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

Ah I see so we are saying stan had to have gouged Webb because he reacted are we?

Lets much the squabbling to one side, did you watch the incident on TV?

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:30 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

Either way his hand had no business being there.

He may have noticed Webb had an extremly large bogey and thought he would help him breathe by removing it.

: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:31 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

Ah I see so we are saying stan had to have gouged Webb because he reacted are we?

No no it was a totally legit tackle Brent Webb just enjoys 'going off on one' for no apparent reason! Stan is the innocent party here.