Quote William Eve="William Eve"Yes it was Big Rob.
No it wasn't. It was a loaded question which contained the presupposition that the Briers incident had been treated in an inconsistent manner in comparison to other incidents of a similar nature. Your loaded question was therefore rejected on the basis of being unreasonable given that other players have been treated in exactly the same fashion for similar misdemeanours.
I'm not interested in furthering your agenda that Briers should have been sin binned on the erroneous basis of you considering it a cheap shot from behind... when photographic evidence proves it was nothing of the kind.'"
Whether it was from behind or the side is irrelevant. In my opinion it was a cheap shot, and I'm surprised you like that kind of thing. I'd have thought you would prefer a proper bit of biff. But even proper biff still requires an element of punishment. The ideal scenario for a sin bin.
Are you now disputing the dictionary definition of a loaded question?
Why are you so reluctant to answer a very simple question? It's very easy to answer.
Do you agree that the refereeing of the Briers incident was inconsistent compared to previous offences this season?
If you don't agree then just answer no.
Or is it that you know it was inconsistent so can't say no but can't bear to answer yes?
Why not try answering the question about Ryan Bailey? Were you outraged at Ryan Bailey's one match ban?
You can reply with further attempts at swerving away from the question if you like? But you'll look a bit silly. Like you did when trying to dispute the Challenge Cup Final attendance.
Or you could try disputing the dictionary again if you like?
