Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
i cant believe they didnt give him say 3 weeks, miss a couple of warm up matches and a group game...back fresh for play offs.....the outcry over a "light" sentence would die off much quicker than clearing him
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
i cant believe they didnt give him say 3 weeks, miss a couple of warm up matches and a group game...back fresh for play offs.....the outcry over a "light" sentence would die off much quicker than clearing him
From memory, Low End for dangerous tackle starts at 2 weeks. No reduction in this case as he's a repeat offender and should have learned his lesson at tackle school.
-
Interesting from Dawson, an English WC winner
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby World Cup news:
Interesting from Dawson, an English WC winner
Except he's being obtuse ot outstandingly ignorant. Community rugby has a clear guideline for waist or below.
-
I think a mandatory 3 week ban for an on field red should be standard so this can never happen. Especially with the new dedicated review system. The lawyers can then try to get it down to 3 from a higher ban. The fact Farrell has been found not guilty from clear head contact and with previous offences is just retarded.
@chimoaus said in Rugby World Cup news:
I think a mandatory 3 week ban for an on field red should be standard so this can never happen. Especially with the new dedicated review system. The lawyers can then try to get it down to 3 from a higher ban. The fact Farrell has been found not guilty from clear head contact and with previous offences is just retarded.
That's not a bad idea at all Chim, same if it's wanted to increase the sentence, can still have a judiciary hearing. Though to be fair should still be in same timeline etc.
-
I think a mandatory 3 week ban for an on field red should be standard so this can never happen. Especially with the new dedicated review system. The lawyers can then try to get it down to 3 from a higher ban. The fact Farrell has been found not guilty from clear head contact and with previous offences is just retarded.
@chimoaus said in Rugby World Cup news:
I think a mandatory 3 week ban for an on field red should be standard so this can never happen. Especially with the new dedicated review system. The lawyers can then try to get it down to 3 from a higher ban. The fact Farrell has been found not guilty from clear head contact and with previous offences is just retarded.
What you seem to be suggesting is basically that the ref/bunker also becomes a judicial officer who can impose suspensions. To me that would be unacceptable. There should always be a fair hearing to establish guilt first.
It would be similar to a cop arresting someone caught in the act of committing a criminal offence and already imposing a minimum sentence without the arrested person first getting a fair trial to establish guilt, where the prosecutor has to submit the evidence to an independent court. Nobody would accept a cop becoming judge & jury.
To me this isn't any different, especially because we've seen again and again how bad officiating can be and how TMOs make mistakes. It would also put refs/TMOs under unnecessary pressure. Good, experienced refs could probably handle that, but you only have to think about all the abuse Ben O'Keefe received after the SRP final and you can see the problem.
-
@chimoaus said in Rugby World Cup news:
I think a mandatory 3 week ban for an on field red should be standard so this can never happen. Especially with the new dedicated review system. The lawyers can then try to get it down to 3 from a higher ban. The fact Farrell has been found not guilty from clear head contact and with previous offences is just retarded.
What you seem to be suggesting is basically that the ref/bunker also becomes a judicial officer who can impose suspensions. To me that would be unacceptable. There should always be a fair hearing to establish guilt first.
It would be similar to a cop arresting someone caught in the act of committing a criminal offence and already imposing a minimum sentence without the arrested person first getting a fair trial to establish guilt, where the prosecutor has to submit the evidence to an independent court. Nobody would accept a cop becoming judge & jury.
To me this isn't any different, especially because we've seen again and again how bad officiating can be and how TMOs make mistakes. It would also put refs/TMOs under unnecessary pressure. Good, experienced refs could probably handle that, but you only have to think about all the abuse Ben O'Keefe received after the SRP final and you can see the problem.
@Stargazer yeah mandatory sentencing isnt ideal
-
@chimoaus said in Rugby World Cup news:
I think a mandatory 3 week ban for an on field red should be standard so this can never happen. Especially with the new dedicated review system. The lawyers can then try to get it down to 3 from a higher ban. The fact Farrell has been found not guilty from clear head contact and with previous offences is just retarded.
What you seem to be suggesting is basically that the ref/bunker also becomes a judicial officer who can impose suspensions. To me that would be unacceptable. There should always be a fair hearing to establish guilt first.
It would be similar to a cop arresting someone caught in the act of committing a criminal offence and already imposing a minimum sentence without the arrested person first getting a fair trial to establish guilt, where the prosecutor has to submit the evidence to an independent court. Nobody would accept a cop becoming judge & jury.
To me this isn't any different, especially because we've seen again and again how bad officiating can be and how TMOs make mistakes. It would also put refs/TMOs under unnecessary pressure. Good, experienced refs could probably handle that, but you only have to think about all the abuse Ben O'Keefe received after the SRP final and you can see the problem.
This post is deleted! -
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
-
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Rugby World Cup news:
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
No. Impose the appropriate punishment and attack the admin.
-
@chimoaus said in Rugby World Cup news:
I think a mandatory 3 week ban for an on field red should be standard so this can never happen. Especially with the new dedicated review system. The lawyers can then try to get it down to 3 from a higher ban. The fact Farrell has been found not guilty from clear head contact and with previous offences is just retarded.
What you seem to be suggesting is basically that the ref/bunker also becomes a judicial officer who can impose suspensions. To me that would be unacceptable. There should always be a fair hearing to establish guilt first.
It would be similar to a cop arresting someone caught in the act of committing a criminal offence and already imposing a minimum sentence without the arrested person first getting a fair trial to establish guilt, where the prosecutor has to submit the evidence to an independent court. Nobody would accept a cop becoming judge & jury.
To me this isn't any different, especially because we've seen again and again how bad officiating can be and how TMOs make mistakes. It would also put refs/TMOs under unnecessary pressure. Good, experienced refs could probably handle that, but you only have to think about all the abuse Ben O'Keefe received after the SRP final and you can see the problem.
@Stargazer well put. I was just about to write something along those lines.
-
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
@Old-Samurai-Jack it sure is boring, but it is his fault for being shit at tackle technique, and he is now shining a light on the inconsistency of these judiciary.
So he is a 'victim' of his lawyers success...
-
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Rugby World Cup news:
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
....except he's a bit of a thug that likes to shoulder charge blokes....so not some innocent thats been done over by the system
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Rugby World Cup news:
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
No. Impose the appropriate punishment and attack the admin.
@booboo said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Rugby World Cup news:
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
No. Impose the appropriate punishment and attack the admin.
I get it wasn't the appropriate punishment but what is Farrell meant to do as a player? Christian-style self-flagellation?
-
@booboo said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Rugby World Cup news:
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
No. Impose the appropriate punishment and attack the admin.
I get it wasn't the appropriate punishment but what is Farrell meant to do as a player? Christian-style self-flagellation?
@Old-Samurai-Jack he could have plead guilty and apologise...because you know...he's guilty
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack he could have plead guilty and apologise...because you know...he's guilty
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Old-Samurai-Jack he could have plead guilty and apologise...because you know...he's guilty
loool
oh yeah, i would totally do that with my last World Cup on the line. Totally
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Old-Samurai-Jack he could have plead guilty and apologise...because you know...he's guilty
loool
oh yeah, i would totally do that with my last World Cup on the line. Totally
@mariner4life George Moala did, at 32 im not sure he has many more RWC's
-
@mariner4life George Moala did, at 32 im not sure he has many more RWC's
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@mariner4life George Moala did, at 32 im not sure he has many more RWC's
George was looking at different odds and probably didn't have as good a lawyer. Lets not pretend he did it out of some sense of honour
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@mariner4life George Moala did, at 32 im not sure he has many more RWC's
George was looking at different odds and probably didn't have as good a lawyer. Lets not pretend he did it out of some sense of honour
@mariner4life unless someone knows him personally we dont know that, i know people with honour, that would be embarrassed to get away with whatever a normal world version of a rugby disciplinary hearing is
we dont know any of those details so all we can say is one plead guilty and one didn't...so it does happen even if your last world cup is on line as you mentioned
and was he looking at different odds? i dont remember anyone thinking Farrell was going to get off, no mitigating circumstances were mentioned before the hearing that i remember
-
the odds were way different. higher entry point, bigger reduction for a guilty plea, no priors
Farrell probably took one look and knew that even with a plea he wasn't getting a reduction, so his best course of action was to get it scrubbed. That's different odds.
This is elite professional sport, there is no room for sentiment.
-
the odds were way different. higher entry point, bigger reduction for a guilty plea, no priors
Farrell probably took one look and knew that even with a plea he wasn't getting a reduction, so his best course of action was to get it scrubbed. That's different odds.
This is elite professional sport, there is no room for sentiment.
@mariner4life TBF most seem to take the early guilty plea to try and get a lesser sentence, and I would guess plenty feel they weren't guilty, but the weight of a longer sentence if the fickle inconsistent judiciary system sees it that way...
I mean the Farrell one is a prime example, based on the number of head contacts leading to suspensions over the past 3 or 4 years, I very much doubt anyone would have thought he'd get away with less than 3 weeks, let alone rescinded!
