I presume, Dave, that the highlighted comments are directed at me. No, I was not on the hill. It is in fact many years since I watched a game from there. I sat in the Grandstand where as usual supporters on both sides were very civilised and appreciative of one of the truly great games of club rugby. But you don't necessarily have to have heard something personally to be in a position to comment on it, if you take the time as I habitually do to check from a number of sources before making an allegation.
I don't normally buy into inter-club arguments but I'm prepared to when necessary. In the present case there were two allegations that drew me out:
Firstly, there was pointed criticism of Tom Carter for not attending the after match function. This surprised me because, unlike most players in this post-breathalyser era, Carter makes a habit of having a drink with the opposition even after being abused by their supporters all afternoon. So I checked and was told that he was there and spoke to Phil Blake for some time.
Secondly, there was the comment that he acted like a "pork chop" after the game in going across to those who had been baiting him. The whole purpose of the incessant abuse is to provoke a reaction, and in such a situation I think his reaction was understandable and justified. But others think he should have bowed his head and skulked off.
"what happens on the paddock stays on the paddock" - but we're not talking about what happened on the paddock. We're concerned with what happened off the field within earshot of women and children, and a mob picking on an individual who's expected to cop it without reacting. I'm prepared to say that's not on, even "on an open forum".
.