|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
why has he been put in the category:samoan rugby league players has he played rugby league before? i wont remove the category until it has been solved.
- That's not illegal? You are joking. It's high and there is no attempt to get both arms around the player.GordyB 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you watched the link his arm go around the player and it is in no way high, besides that the referee on the field didn't call him for it. The commentary actually say it is totally legal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I have.GordyB 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So you now agrre the tackle was legal as the page currently states "Lima legally "dump-tackled" (no arms) Hougaard, sending him crashing to the ground and dazing him for at least 5 to 10 minutes"
I suggest removing the legally and the no arms part so it reads "Lima "dump-tackled" Hougaard, sending him crashing to the ground and dazing him for at least 5 to 10 minutes"
Not sure I agree it was a dump tackle but I would be happy with the above compromise
- I don't agree that it was legal but I will accept the proposed compromise.GordyB 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how you can argue it wasn't legal see this link for a clear view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XplyA_WpY-A&mode=related&search=. The referee and the commentary both think it was legal so you have no basis to argue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The ref and commentators aren't the be-all and end-all of the matter. Referees make mistakes and commentators opinions are worth no more than anybody else's.GordyB 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Reading the Wiki policy yesterday it is now my understanding that your opinion does not matter so unless you can get a verifiable source to state that the tackle was illegal this is a pointless argument. Besides this you are wrong the tackle was fair.
- Watch this space.GordyB 11:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
He was ironically forced off the field in a daze, just 3 minutes after taking the field, after one of his trademark late, high-and-no-arms hits on Andre Pretorius (replacement flyhalf) backfired
- He is nicknamed the "chiropractor" for a reason.GordyB 11:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Source, or I will change it as it is POV. According to source http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,11003-2007430219,00.html the nickname is for "the way his tackles re-arrange bones" nothing to do with late, high or no arm tackles.
- The Sun is not exactly a decent source, but for the record I think "trademark" is unnecessarily POV. But to be honest I agree with that point of view, he is known for high shots.GordyB 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)