Springboks v British & Irish Lions III
-
@catogrande it really depends whether you go with point two or point three of the quoted bit. Incisive is not defined in the report so it is kinda difficult interpret what is meant by point three.
Again I don't care what the outcome was and I am not saying Sinckler needed to be banned or anything, but the application of the laws are just far removed from the way they are written. This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
If the intention is that guilt must be proven, then amend the laws to actually say that instead of contorting yourself into knots to get the result you think is right.
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
-
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
-
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
-
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.
I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?
-
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.
I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?
-
@nzzp I guess they had enough evidence to go down that road. Plenty of accidental contact to the head gets punished though. I'm just a bit dubious about it all.
Getting an accidental bite in with a mouth guard in as well?
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@nzzp I guess they had enough evidence to go down that road. Plenty of accidental contact to the head gets punished though. I'm just a bit dubious about it all.
Getting an accidental bite in with a mouth guard in as well?
Kyle doesn’t wear one.
-
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@nzzp I guess they had enough evidence to go down that road. Plenty of accidental contact to the head gets punished though. I'm just a bit dubious about it all.
Getting an accidental bite in with a mouth guard in as well?
Kyle doesn’t wear one.
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@nzzp I guess they had enough evidence to go down that road. Plenty of accidental contact to the head gets punished though. I'm just a bit dubious about it all.
Getting an accidental bite in with a mouth guard in as well?
Kyle doesn’t wear one.
That would explain it then. Also confirms why I think that he is an idiot.
-
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.
I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?
@nzzp said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.
I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?
We once had a guy on the ground, head near opponent's leg. Opponent screamed, gets up with bite mark. Ref didn't "see" it, but red card on probability. What wasn't evident was the opponent was reefing away at our bloke's headgear, so it was reactionary.
12 weeks for biting, basically because the ref could connect 2 events and we didn't have any video to back up claims of the head being attacked.
-
@sidbarret I found this info on a reddit rugby feed. Unable to find a link on google to the original data site . Sorry.
@daffy-jaffy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
reddit rugby feed
the RugbyUnion reddit is possibly the dumbest place on the internet.
-
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
Sorry but is this a Lions thing or is it a French thing? Anything specific that leads you down either road mate?
-
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
Sorry but is this a Lions thing or is it a French thing? Anything specific that leads you down either road mate?
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
Sorry but is this a Lions thing or is it a French thing? Anything specific that leads you down either road mate?
It's both really. The former leading to the latter.
Always heaps of off field stuff with lions tours. From taking a spin doctor like Alistair Campbell on tour, to a 1 hour after match video by a coach. All designed to influence opinions. It is part of a Lions tour that you have very passionate fans, and they only happen every 4 years so the off field antics ramp up a lot on all sides. That increases pressure on the officials and some "interesting" decisions (read French there in my example).
-
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
Sorry but is this a Lions thing or is it a French thing? Anything specific that leads you down either road mate?
It's both really. The former leading to the latter.
Always heaps of off field stuff with lions tours. From taking a spin doctor like Alistair Campbell on tour, to a 1 hour after match video by a coach. All designed to influence opinions. It is part of a Lions tour that you have very passionate fans, and they only happen every 4 years so the off field antics ramp up a lot on all sides. That increases pressure on the officials and some "interesting" decisions (read French there in my example).
Yeah the Campbell thing was outrageous, mind you, my friend brought back some of the NZ press from the 2005 tour which was equally appalling, slating the players, the coaching staff, the officials and “highlighting” various areas of the Lions play in the build up in what looked like attempts to influence the refereeing. It was pretty non-stop and quite often front page. Woodward was awful on that tour and in truth I don’t see Gatland as being a whole lot better. Erasmus just stepped it all up a notch.
Deals though? Nah.
-
What a fitting end point to the whole series.
-
what a fucking jackass
-
what a fucking jackass
@mariner4life said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
what a fucking jackass
He's officially beyond contempt
-
Interesting to see how the aftermath of the Rassie thing has been totally ignored by the local media and official channels.
Glad to hear that the result of the series is not being over-turned though! But, a bit disappointing that 3 of the allegations of errors were found incorrect by the expert officials panel. He was ruled correct on only a measly 23 of them.
But, the huge leaked revelation/allegation is that Erasmus sent a copy of the video to Referee Nic Berry before it surfaced in Aussie media. Looks like somebody deliberately hung Erasmus out to dry. I wonder if any action will be taken on that, as apparently sending a review video to a referee is not a novel thing?
