Jump to content

Wolves sign Josh McGuire


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You do know how forums work don't you? 

This one still has some legs in it as we have to expect a response from Wire. 

Or not as seems normal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


57 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm afraid there really isn't any other way to read this.

We know people lie, we know people can be good communicators versus others being poor and so on.

The experts have listened to the evidence, been there for the cross-examination and concluded that Charnley was a credible witness. You then provide an example that shows that this doesn't mean truthful.

I'm not sure what else anyone is meant to take from your post. Particularly considering you have been critical of Charnley running to teacher throughout this. 

In a case (forget Charnley) were one person is against another with no credible evidence a panel will make a decision on the way people answer in cross examination and how that stacks up with the other details but it is not flawless as I explained not everyone is a good communicator.But back to this case McGuire has recent previous which will influence the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

 

I'm not sure what else anyone is meant to take from your post. Particularly considering you have been critical of Charnley running to teacher throughout this. 

I expect more grown up response of you Dave, you usually give well thought out comments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

In a case (forget Charnley) were one person is against another with no credible evidence a panel will make a decision on the way people answer in cross examination and how that stacks up with the other details but it is not flawless as I explained not everyone is a good communicator.But back to this case McGuire has recent previous which will influence the decision.

McGuire is clearly not a great communicator as he seems to have twice now said an anti-disabled slur towards an opponent on the pitch whilst claiming he said something else...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

McGuire is clearly not a great communicator as he seems to have twice now said an anti-disabled slur towards an opponent on the pitch whilst claiming he said something else...

Totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

McGuire is clearly not a great communicator as he seems to have twice now said an anti-disabled slur towards an opponent on the pitch whilst claiming he said something else...

Totally agree  sorry double post 

Edited by ELBOWSEYE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

In a case (forget Charnley) were one person is against another with no credible evidence a panel will make a decision on the way people answer in cross examination and how that stacks up with the other details but it is not flawless as I explained not everyone is a good communicator.But back to this case McGuire has recent previous which will influence the decision.

I think that these two points are quite important.

- Mr Charnley makes an instant beeline for Mr McGuire after the tackle and is visibly emotional in his actions and gesticulates towards Mr McGuire. Mr Charnley can be seen when walking backwards to his position to still have eyes towards the direction of Mr McGuire.

- Mr Charnley at the next available stoppage intimates to the touch judge that he wants to make a complaint about Mr McGuire and the Touch Judge calls the referee over to Mr Charnley who informs the referee who then puts the incident On Report.

I think when there is pretty clear evidence that one of the participants in the exchange was visibly emotional and reacted very quickly to the situation, it lends considerable weight to his testimony that what was said was of significance.  I don't think any rugby League player is that good an actor to react that way to being called a 'rat'.

  • Like 3

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think that these two points are quite important.

- Mr Charnley makes an instant beeline for Mr McGuire after the tackle and is visibly emotional in his actions and gesticulates towards Mr McGuire. Mr Charnley can be seen when walking backwards to his position to still have eyes towards the direction of Mr McGuire.

- Mr Charnley at the next available stoppage intimates to the touch judge that he wants to make a complaint about Mr McGuire and the Touch Judge calls the referee over to Mr Charnley who informs the referee who then puts the incident On Report.

I think when there is pretty clear evidence that one of the participants in the exchange was visibly emotional and reacted very quickly to the situation, it lends considerable weight to his testimony that what was said was of significance.  I don't think any rugby League player is that good an actor to react that way to being called a 'rat'.

Not disagreeing with what you state and McGuire is obviously a poor (liar/communicator) with previous this season, but all my posts were not just on this case but the fallibility of the process which can be bypassed with a credible liar and a nervous opposition,this time the recipient was credible and the aggressor was not believable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think that these two points are quite important.

- Mr Charnley makes an instant beeline for Mr McGuire after the tackle and is visibly emotional in his actions and gesticulates towards Mr McGuire. Mr Charnley can be seen when walking backwards to his position to still have eyes towards the direction of Mr McGuire.

- Mr Charnley at the next available stoppage intimates to the touch judge that he wants to make a complaint about Mr McGuire and the Touch Judge calls the referee over to Mr Charnley who informs the referee who then puts the incident On Report.

I think when there is pretty clear evidence that one of the participants in the exchange was visibly emotional and reacted very quickly to the situation, it lends considerable weight to his testimony that what was said was of significance.  I don't think any rugby League player is that good an actor to react that way to being called a 'rat'.

Just for the sake of debate, if Charnley had not been a witness who could clearly state what happened and was not a good communicator and McGuire had no previous and was an excellent communication witness with a credible kasiano. It could have produced a different verdict even though Charnley was telling the truth. It was that the scenario is not always so simple to sort out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just for the sake of debate, if Charnley had not been a witness who could clearly state what happened and was not a good communicator and McGuire had no previous and was an excellent communication witness with a credible kasiano. It could have produced a different verdict even though Charnley was telling the truth. It was that the scenario is not always so simple to sort out. 

Absolutely agree with that.  Some people are just very good under those types of situations and are just good liars.

Which is why I think the video evidence showing the much more raw and emmotional reaction of the player is actually important - that is more difficult to fake or coach.

  • Like 2

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Dave T said:

Please take this in the spirit is intended, but I think you are being rather thin-skinned to people disagreeing with you on this. The tone of this discussion has been really civil for such a contentious subject.

I've had a skim read through the early pages again before posting this, but I don't see the attitudes to you that you claim. One of the most antagonistic posts was on page 4 where you brought "woke" and "idiot" into the discussion. 

Personally I think it has been a decent thread with plenty of good posts and interesting views presented. 

Most of the "attacks" are against the majority view, beibg accused of group think. 

So thin skinned he's going to tell tales to get someone in to trouble?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Absolutely agree with that.  Some people are just very good under those types of situations and are just good liars.

Which is why I think the video evidence showing the much more raw and emmotional reaction of the player is actually important - that is more difficult to fake or coach.

No more difficult than a player faking injury to get a game stopped.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

So thin skinned he's going to tell tales to get someone in to trouble?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

No more difficult than a player faking injury to get a game stopped.....

Can I just ask you to state clearly what you are arguing for on this thread.

Forget the groupthink quips, forget the one line comebacks on various posts.

Just tell me what your thoughts are on the case in hand.  What Mcguire was judged to have said, the circumstances around it and the disciplinary decision. 

  • Haha 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gavin Harrison said:

So thin skinned he's going to tell tales to get someone in to trouble?

 

No need, I've seen it, I've reviewed your account and posts, and you are a troll. Most likely a returned one.

Banned.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 6
  • Sad 1

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just for the sake of debate, if Charnley had not been a witness who could clearly state what happened and was not a good communicator and McGuire had no previous and was an excellent communication witness with a credible kasiano. It could have produced a different verdict even though Charnley was telling the truth. It was that the scenario is not always so simple to sort out. 

Had the case played out as you say, a not guilty verdict would be returned. I also think a not guilty verdict would probably have been returned had McGuire not brought any of his team mates into it, and if he'd said the bare minimum, rather than use his 'good' character as evidence. The scenario of Charnley mis-hearing what was said had already been considered.

No system will ever be perfect for these cases, but there has to be a mechanism to give proper scrutiny to these allegations that tells players they can't say things that cross the line, and get away with it as long as it's not been caught by a camera, mic or referee.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Had the case played out as you say, a not guilty verdict would be returned. I also think a not guilty verdict would probably have been returned had McGuire not brought any of his team mates into it, and if he'd said the bare minimum, rather than use his 'good' character as evidence. The scenario of Charnley mis-hearing what was said had already been considered.

No system will ever be perfect for these cases, but there has to be a mechanism to give proper scrutiny to these allegations that tells players they can't say things that cross the line, and get away with it as long as it's not been caught by a camera, mic or referee.

 

Totally agree with that, that's what I was trying to show,is that the system is fallible.

It would have been hard on Charnley if the accused was intelligent and had put enough doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Regardless of the intelligence of McGuire, it's not as if Warrington had got someone inexperienced as his/their legal representation.

We've all been around rugby players and ultimately he would have to answer himself. 

I was just trying to show that guilt is not always so easy to prove in these types of cases.

I am running out of the will to carry on in this topic because ultimately we just keep repeating the same answers but in a separate way. That's no slur to your post it's just I seem to answer a similar question but from a different poster.

So thanks for the post

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.