Page 2 of 2
Re: Karl Pryce v Mark Flannagan
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:14 pm
by cpwigan
I think the reasoning was/is that the 2 players were/are fighting for the 4th reserve position of the 17.
Re Pryce. Where is the duty of care
Re: Karl Pryce v Mark Flannagan
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:32 pm
by GeoffN
old hooker wrote:Why does it have to be Pryce v Flaganan?,Pryce is a centre or Winger,Flanagan a hooker or loose forward? so the comparison is totally irrelevant.
Because either Pryce or Flanagan essentially occupies the reserve hooker slot - in Pryce's case by allowing TL to go to hooker.