Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
@canefan amd they do, different grad offensives have starting points and the panel has to justify any reduction....its baffling how the original one came to their decision! good on WR for coming in and sorting, even if it was only due to the almost universal outcry
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan amd they do, different grad offensives have starting points and the panel has to justify any reduction....its baffling how the original one came to their decision! good on WR for coming in and sorting, even if it was only due to the almost universal outcry
You always look better if it appears that action was your idea!! The way they let it play out, it makes WR look like they only took action in response to the outrage
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan amd they do, different grad offensives have starting points and the panel has to justify any reduction....its baffling how the original one came to their decision! good on WR for coming in and sorting, even if it was only due to the almost universal outcry
You always look better if it appears that action was your idea!! The way they let it play out, it makes WR look like they only took action in response to the outrage
@canefan i honestly believe no one including WR thought he would get off completely, i think if anything WR has taken a harsh or conservative stance on a lot of these matters, harsher than i would be anyone for things that are actual accidents for example
-
@canefan i honestly believe no one including WR thought he would get off completely, i think if anything WR has taken a harsh or conservative stance on a lot of these matters, harsher than i would be anyone for things that are actual accidents for example
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan i honestly believe no one including WR thought he would get off completely, i think if anything WR has taken a harsh or conservative stance on a lot of these matters, harsher than i would be anyone for things that are actual accidents for example
Harsh when it came to Moala, among others. The optics are terrible with Farrell's case
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan i honestly believe no one including WR thought he would get off completely, i think if anything WR has taken a harsh or conservative stance on a lot of these matters, harsher than i would be anyone for things that are actual accidents for example
Harsh when it came to Moala, among others. The optics are terrible with Farrell's case
@canefan the more i think about it the more i do wonder if something corrupt went on, getting cleared for that tackle when other people get bans for complete accidents seems impossible
-
wonder if Farrells lawyer will appeal or they will just leave it at this?
Part of me wants them to appeal to show the system up for being flawed to hopefully (yeah right) improve it.
-
@canefan the more i think about it the more i do wonder if something corrupt went on, getting cleared for that tackle when other people get bans for complete accidents seems impossible
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan the more i think about it the more i do wonder if something corrupt went on, getting cleared for that tackle when other people get bans for complete accidents seems impossible
Yup - my first reaction to the down grading was that it reeked of corruption and I have seen nothing from todays decision to change my mind.... case and point below
"player’s acceptance of foul play," was seen as mitigation -- acceptance my arse - he pleaded not guilty and contested it blatantly .. at no stage has he accepted it was foul play - these are just weasel words to justify doing the bare possible minimum.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan the more i think about it the more i do wonder if something corrupt went on, getting cleared for that tackle when other people get bans for complete accidents seems impossible
Yup - my first reaction to the down grading was that it reeked of corruption and I have seen nothing from todays decision to change my mind.... case and point below
"player’s acceptance of foul play," was seen as mitigation -- acceptance my arse - he pleaded not guilty and contested it blatantly .. at no stage has he accepted it was foul play - these are just weasel words to justify doing the bare possible minimum.
@Mattasaurus hope he also showed remorse this week, now he has seen the it form a new angle to know that he done wrong!
-
@Mattasaurus hope he also showed remorse this week, now he has seen the it form a new angle to know that he done wrong!
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Mattasaurus hope he also showed remorse this week, now he has seen the it form a new angle to know that he done wrong!
I'm sure he got to see it the first time around, any remorse now will seem forced
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Mattasaurus hope he also showed remorse this week, now he has seen the it form a new angle to know that he done wrong!
I'm sure he got to see it the first time around, any remorse now will seem forced
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Mattasaurus hope he also showed remorse this week, now he has seen the it form a new angle to know that he done wrong!
I'm sure he got to see it the first time around, any remorse now will seem forced
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Mattasaurus hope he also showed remorse this week, now he has seen the it form a new angle to know that he done wrong!
I'm sure he got to see it the first time around, any remorse now will seem forced
@canefan was tongue in cheek comment, most 'remorse' is usually feigned to reduce sentencing (IRL too)
-
@Mattasaurus hope he also showed remorse this week, now he has seen the it form a new angle to know that he done wrong!
@taniwharugby the "new angle" being that the RFU lawyer sat him down to explain that the jig is up, and if can say sorry with a straight face then they might be able to get it down to 4 weeks
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
so, farrell got 4 weeks and will miss a couple of englands RWC games
A common apologist argument online is that the panel is independent so the IRB have no control. I can't believe that is the case, surely they have the power to set the parameters of how these panels operate, and give guidance re-decisions (not case by case, but they must set some guidelines). All the outrage could have been avoided if the panel had done the right thing in the first place. Another own goal from the drop kicks at World Rugby.
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
so, farrell got 4 weeks and will miss a couple of englands RWC games
A common apologist argument online is that the panel is independent so the IRB have no control. I can't believe that is the case, surely they have the power to set the parameters of how these panels operate, and give guidance re-decisions (not case by case, but they must set some guidelines). All the outrage could have been avoided if the panel had done the right thing in the first place. Another own goal from the drop kicks at World Rugby.
It's not an apologist argument. The panel is independent.
The guidance is in Regulation 17, which is clearly explained here.
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/discipline
I can't believe that anyone on the Fern still doesn't know this.
These guidelines apply to all processes, so even in case of disciplanry proceedings taking place after offending in a game that falls under the Six Nations or SANZAAR rather than World Rugby.
-
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
so, farrell got 4 weeks and will miss a couple of englands RWC games
A common apologist argument online is that the panel is independent so the IRB have no control. I can't believe that is the case, surely they have the power to set the parameters of how these panels operate, and give guidance re-decisions (not case by case, but they must set some guidelines). All the outrage could have been avoided if the panel had done the right thing in the first place. Another own goal from the drop kicks at World Rugby.
It's not an apologist argument. The panel is independent.
The guidance is in Regulation 17, which is clearly explained here.
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/discipline
I can't believe that anyone on the Fern still doesn't know this.
These guidelines apply to all processes, so even in case of disciplanry proceedings taking place after offending in a game that falls under the Six Nations or SANZAAR rather than World Rugby.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
so, farrell got 4 weeks and will miss a couple of englands RWC games
A common apologist argument online is that the panel is independent so the IRB have no control. I can't believe that is the case, surely they have the power to set the parameters of how these panels operate, and give guidance re-decisions (not case by case, but they must set some guidelines). All the outrage could have been avoided if the panel had done the right thing in the first place. Another own goal from the drop kicks at World Rugby.
It's not an apologist argument. The panel is independent.
The guidance is in Regulation 17, which is clearly explained here.
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/discipline
I can't believe that anyone on the Fern still doesn't know this.
These guidelines apply to all processes, so even in case of disciplanry proceedings taking place after offending in a game that falls under the Six Nations or SANZAAR rather than World Rugby.
Well something reeks about that initial decision, independent or not
-
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
so, farrell got 4 weeks and will miss a couple of englands RWC games
A common apologist argument online is that the panel is independent so the IRB have no control. I can't believe that is the case, surely they have the power to set the parameters of how these panels operate, and give guidance re-decisions (not case by case, but they must set some guidelines). All the outrage could have been avoided if the panel had done the right thing in the first place. Another own goal from the drop kicks at World Rugby.
It's not an apologist argument. The panel is independent.
The guidance is in Regulation 17, which is clearly explained here.
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/discipline
I can't believe that anyone on the Fern still doesn't know this.
These guidelines apply to all processes, so even in case of disciplanry proceedings taking place after offending in a game that falls under the Six Nations or SANZAAR rather than World Rugby.
@Stargazer you're right that the panel is independent, but @canefan is right that this mess could have been avoided if the panel had done their job properly first time around (or, even better, if Farrell had decided not to be a grub in the first place)
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
so, farrell got 4 weeks and will miss a couple of englands RWC games
A common apologist argument online is that the panel is independent so the IRB have no control. I can't believe that is the case, surely they have the power to set the parameters of how these panels operate, and give guidance re-decisions (not case by case, but they must set some guidelines). All the outrage could have been avoided if the panel had done the right thing in the first place. Another own goal from the drop kicks at World Rugby.
It's not an apologist argument. The panel is independent.
The guidance is in Regulation 17, which is clearly explained here.
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/discipline
I can't believe that anyone on the Fern still doesn't know this.
These guidelines apply to all processes, so even in case of disciplanry proceedings taking place after offending in a game that falls under the Six Nations or SANZAAR rather than World Rugby.
Well something reeks about that initial decision, independent or not
-
@canefan I agree, but I don't think anyone can blame World Rugby for that, unless they missed "something" in the appointment process of the judiciary panels.
@Stargazer I think WR do have some responsibility, because this is not a one-off aberration. This process regularly hands out inconsistent / opaque / nonsense findings, which says something is very broken. The panel should be independent, but WR need to fix the process they operate under.
-
@canefan I agree, but I don't think anyone can blame World Rugby for that, unless they missed "something" in the appointment process of the judiciary panels.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan I agree, but I don't think anyone can blame World Rugby for that, unless they missed "something" in the appointment process of the judiciary panels.
yeah, when i say i worry something corrupt went on, i only mean with the individuals on that panel, not WR in general...and even that feels slightly tin foil hat...but i just cant see how they got where they got
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan I agree, but I don't think anyone can blame World Rugby for that, unless they missed "something" in the appointment process of the judiciary panels.
yeah, when i say i worry something corrupt went on, i only mean with the individuals on that panel, not WR in general...and even that feels slightly tin foil hat...but i just cant see how they got where they got
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan I agree, but I don't think anyone can blame World Rugby for that, unless they missed "something" in the appointment process of the judiciary panels.
yeah, when i say i worry something corrupt went on, i only mean with the individuals on that panel, not WR in general...and even that feels slightly tin foil hat...but i just cant see how they got where they got
I don't think it's tin foil hat at all, seems like the most sensible conclusion.
I'm not suggesting full blown, brown-paper-bags-stuffed-with-banknotes corruption. More a case of soft corruption, bending the rules to help your mates out - probably combined with being starstruck by a KC who's providing all the words they need to justify it to themselves.
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Billy-Tell said in Rugby World Cup news:
Am I missing a joke or do some people not know how to spell Pumas?
As Canes said I hit O instead of P when saying how I thought things were strom in a teacup. I often do that, don't really tend to concetrate when replying on forums, as I admit to usually doing it while watching tv etc. I not a huge internet fan, only really come into rugby forums and tend to just type as quick as my clumsy fingers will do it and never check.
mate, it's how memes start. Someone on here (Snowy?) wound up being assumed to be a serial killer with bodies in the basement. It's the way it is; lean into it and take the W.
Ouma's has a certain ring to it
