array(2) {
[0]=>
string(815) "
select r.*,
rc.info,
t.title as threadtitle,
u.username as username,
u.anonymous as useranonymous,
`f`.`value` AS `flairvalue`,
`ft`.`name` AS `flairname`,
`ft`.`colour` AS `flaircolour`,
`ft`.`icon` AS `flairicon`
from reply as r
join thread as t on t.id = r.threadid
join replycontent as rc on rc.replyid = r.id
join user as u on u.id = r.userid
left join `flair` `f` on `f`.`userid` = `u`.`id` and `f`.`categoryid` = `t`.`categoryid`
left join `flairoption` `ft` on `ft`.`id` = `f`.`flairoptionid`
where r.businessid = :businessId
and r.threadid = :threadId
group by r.id
order by r.utcdated desc
limit 0,50
"
[1]=>
array(2) {
["businessId"]=>
int(1)
["threadId"]=>
int(31197)
}
}
In this incident, the NBL report shows that Madgen was called as a witness. But in the Holmes affair, there is no mention of Demos being called to testify.
Inconsistent?
And Brett Hogan says:
" he was unsure if there had been any contact by Ben Madgen as he ran by Larry Davidson but that he had seen a grab with the left arm around the leg of the player. He explained to the Tribunal that he was unsure at the time if the player Ben Madgen had stepped on the player on the floor or if his leg had made contact with the body of Larry Davidson"
So, he was unsure if Madgen had stepped on Davidson, so that made Davidson's actions acceptable?
Wasn't this the referee "involved" in the Holmes-Demos incident as well?