All Black Squad for Rugby Championship
-
@Stargazer said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
And by respect he means publicly shit on the decision.
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
http://twitter.com/AP9_/status/893226317877047296
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
-
Foster makes an interesting point
Ironically, if someone gets red-carded in this particular match they will have to go through a judiciary hearing as they would in any other competitive match. I think it's hypocritical to say that one player can be suspended for an illegal act in a match, but another player can't use that match to live out a suspension
-
@Nepia said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
Always liked Pichot the player back in the day. He's been a bit of a dick since joining WR.
Has he?
Seems to me he just went on a mission to get rid of project players, don't recall too much else myself.
-
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
http://twitter.com/AP9_/status/893226317877047296
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
@Stargazer said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
http://twitter.com/AP9_/status/893226317877047296
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
I think you are overreacting. The fact he 'retweeted' the WR statement doesn't really mean much.
-
@Stargazer said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
http://twitter.com/AP9_/status/893226317877047296
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
I think you are overreacting. The fact he 'retweeted' the WR statement doesn't really mean much.
@ACT-Crusader said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@Stargazer said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
http://twitter.com/AP9_/status/893226317877047296
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
I think you are overreacting. The fact he 'retweeted' the WR statement doesn't really mean much.
Nah, just a reaction. Don't care enough to overreact.
-
From a team perspective. I'd rather SBW was suspended for Bledisloe but got some good match practice in the non-game of 3 halves. He's going to be undercooked.
I would have thought a common sense judgement by the judiciary would have seen the non-game as a non-game and none of their business whether SBW or even Simon fucking Whareorere played in it, and UFC rules applied, with Greg Cooper v Richard Loe as
halfthird time entertainment, and Loe v Carozza as the other third time entertainment . Given it's a non-game.WR should concentrate on improving their competence in the non-financial areas of the sport, eg the governance.
-
While World Rugby respects the decision of the independent appeal committee to uphold the appeal by New Zealand’s Sonny Bill Williams against the matches that counted towards his four-week suspension, it is surprised by the committee’s interpretation of the definition of “match” (which is defined in Regulation 1 as “a game in which two teams compete against each other”).
Are they trying to say that two teams aren't competing against each other in this match?
-
Foster makes an interesting point
Ironically, if someone gets red-carded in this particular match they will have to go through a judiciary hearing as they would in any other competitive match. I think it's hypocritical to say that one player can be suspended for an illegal act in a match, but another player can't use that match to live out a suspension
@KiwiMurph said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
Foster makes an interesting point
Ironically, if someone gets red-carded in this particular match they will have to go through a judiciary hearing as they would in any other competitive match. I think it's hypocritical to say that one player can be suspended for an illegal act in a match, but another player can't use that match to live out a suspension
I made the same point earlier in the thread. It would have been funny if they upheld that it wasn't a match then cited someone during it.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
Foster makes an interesting point
Ironically, if someone gets red-carded in this particular match they will have to go through a judiciary hearing as they would in any other competitive match. I think it's hypocritical to say that one player can be suspended for an illegal act in a match, but another player can't use that match to live out a suspension
I made the same point earlier in the thread. It would have been funny if they upheld that it wasn't a match then cited someone during it.
@Crucial not to mention, if they were saying it didnt count as a match under his, he should have then been free to play in this match that didnt count.
Just highlights more ineptitude from the powers that be that this has even become an issue.
-
I don't have an issue with how this has played out. Due process has not been denied. A set of arguments were put forth. The game of three halves is a concept match which I would've had doubts over as well.
The judicial review was allowed to happen and a different outcome has been achieved. It doesn't speak to competence or lack thereof when this happens. Just speaks to different views and interpretation. Happens on a regular basis in all areas of law including sport.
What will the coaches will do with Sonny. I think he will start with Crotty. ALB or Reiko on the bench
-
I don't have an issue with how this has played out. Due process has not been denied. A set of arguments were put forth. The game of three halves is a concept match which I would've had doubts over as well.
The judicial review was allowed to happen and a different outcome has been achieved. It doesn't speak to competence or lack thereof when this happens. Just speaks to different views and interpretation. Happens on a regular basis in all areas of law including sport.
What will the coaches will do with Sonny. I think he will start with Crotty. ALB or Reiko on the bench
@ACT-Crusader I think the fact that the ban was handed down, and then only last week they decided to make a decision on whether the game of 3 halves constituted a real game was the issue.
Pretty sure the schedule of matches that SBW may have been eleigible to play in would have been known at the time of the ban, therefore to turn around weeks later and make decisions about the games he may have played in, is IMO incompetence.
-
I do think that is either a silly blunder by Pichot or a slip that shows that WR expect their 'independent' panels to rule as their paymasters expect.
His response to people pointing this out only makes things worse. He had the opportunity to back down and admit that is was not a comment he should make but didn't.
-
@ACT-Crusader I think the fact that the ban was handed down, and then only last week they decided to make a decision on whether the game of 3 halves constituted a real game was the issue.
Pretty sure the schedule of matches that SBW may have been eleigible to play in would have been known at the time of the ban, therefore to turn around weeks later and make decisions about the games he may have played in, is IMO incompetence.
@taniwharugby said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@ACT-Crusader I think the fact that the ban was handed down, and then only last week they decided to make a decision on whether the game of 3 halves constituted a real game was the issue.
Pretty sure the schedule of matches that SBW may have been eleigible to play in would have been known at the time of the ban, therefore to turn around weeks later and make decisions about the games he may have played in, is IMO incompetence.
There's a few assumptions in there TR.
Obviously it was a disputed issue around the games. That doesn't seem that unusual to me when one of those is this game of three halves which has more of a practice feel to it than anything. Now the status of that game appears to have been reviewed and given official status for the purposes of sanctions etc.
-
So who and when was it determined that the game of three halves would have sanctions etc?
@ACT-Crusader said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
So who and when was it determined that the game of three halves would have sanctions etc?
Good question.
No one has to go to WR and ask permission to hold a game. My guess would be that in order to provide safeguards to player welfare the NZRU would do the usual stuff like appoint a ref and a citing framework under the guidelines. They couldn't really hold the game without them.Also, as an aside, the term 'Game of Three halves' is a marketing one. It is important to understand that no one team plays more than two halves of rugby. IMO it is a very clever solution to providing the ABs a decent hit-out while promoting provincial rugby.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@ACT-Crusader I think the fact that the ban was handed down, and then only last week they decided to make a decision on whether the game of 3 halves constituted a real game was the issue.
Pretty sure the schedule of matches that SBW may have been eleigible to play in would have been known at the time of the ban, therefore to turn around weeks later and make decisions about the games he may have played in, is IMO incompetence.
There's a few assumptions in there TR.
Obviously it was a disputed issue around the games. That doesn't seem that unusual to me when one of those is this game of three halves which has more of a practice feel to it than anything. Now the status of that game appears to have been reviewed and given official status for the purposes of sanctions etc.
@ACT-Crusader said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@taniwharugby said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@ACT-Crusader I think the fact that the ban was handed down, and then only last week they decided to make a decision on whether the game of 3 halves constituted a real game was the issue.
Pretty sure the schedule of matches that SBW may have been eleigible to play in would have been known at the time of the ban, therefore to turn around weeks later and make decisions about the games he may have played in, is IMO incompetence.
There's a few assumptions in there TR.
Obviously it was a disputed issue around the games. That doesn't seem that unusual to me when one of those is this game of three halves which has more of a practice feel to it than anything. Now the status of that game appears to have been reviewed and given official status for the purposes of sanctions etc.
No, the citing procedures and refs for the game were in place well beofre the SBW situation even arose.
-
@JayCee said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@Billy-Tell
2) no, he would have be available to play.The way I understood it, it didn't count towards his ban, yet he still wasn't allowed to play.
That's where I believe their decision was flawed, it made no sense at all.
Bloody Aussies, trying to have their cake and eat it too! -
@taniwharugby said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@ACT-Crusader I think the fact that the ban was handed down, and then only last week they decided to make a decision on whether the game of 3 halves constituted a real game was the issue.
Pretty sure the schedule of matches that SBW may have been eleigible to play in would have been known at the time of the ban, therefore to turn around weeks later and make decisions about the games he may have played in, is IMO incompetence.
There's a few assumptions in there TR.
Obviously it was a disputed issue around the games. That doesn't seem that unusual to me when one of those is this game of three halves which has more of a practice feel to it than anything. Now the status of that game appears to have been reviewed and given official status for the purposes of sanctions etc.
@ACT-Crusader said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@taniwharugby said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@ACT-Crusader I think the fact that the ban was handed down, and then only last week they decided to make a decision on whether the game of 3 halves constituted a real game was the issue.
Pretty sure the schedule of matches that SBW may have been eleigible to play in would have been known at the time of the ban, therefore to turn around weeks later and make decisions about the games he may have played in, is IMO incompetence.
There's a few assumptions in there TR.
Obviously it was a disputed issue around the games. That doesn't seem that unusual to me when one of those is this game of three halves which has more of a practice feel to it than anything. Now the status of that game appears to have been reviewed and given official status for the purposes of sanctions etc.
Assumptions of competence when making the decision on how many games to ban him for, one would assume they would have access to a schedule of a game and therefore use this to determine which he will be ineligible to play in due to the ban, or did the ones making the ban make the assumption on the game of three halves and its relevance to the ban?
Again, my only assumption is one of competence in the original decision, maybe bans need to be for set weeks or they produce a list of games they are ineligible to play given match schedules are usually months in advance
