Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
And if not on places like the Fern, where else? Ridiculous
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
Yep, I not arguing about people discussing it ,why we come into forums. When I said it easier to move on, I meant in my world. Remember when the Tom Banks head clash was overturned last year, was (in my opinion) as unfair as this one, Just I put it down to a crazy decision and moved on is all I meant.
I have read it's all because he plays for England( by an all Aussie panel), it's racist, someone on take etc. Which are almost as crazy as the decision.I actually watching the match as I posting this, and will say again, I don't see how it was not upheld though.
-
someone just reminded me Angus Ta'avao got three weeks for an accident head clash, just negligence compared to OF's deliberate shoulder charge
-
someone just reminded me Angus Ta'avao got three weeks for an accident head clash, just negligence compared to OF's deliberate shoulder charge
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
someone just reminded me Angus Ta'avao got three weeks for an accident head clash, just negligence compared to OF's deliberate shoulder charge
it only took 7 days for that decision to be ignored completely
-
I would even suggest as a multiple repeated offence that would even get a ban in league, not his first rodeo
-
They have set a dangerous precedent now for the world cup just around the corner,
Any high tackles and people will be expecting leniency using this as the most recent example ,
Can of worms
-
George Moala got given a ten week ban.
https://x.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1691447849089908738?s=46
-
-
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
-
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
@Nevorian said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
It's very disappointing!
There could have been a parade of white broncos through Paris!
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
Who elects / assembles the disciplinary panel?
The Government of the country in which the incident took place?
Or World Rugby?
-
The French hate the English anyway, maybe the crowd can give him the Quade Cooper treatment and boo him everytime he touches the ball?
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
The French hate the English anyway, maybe the crowd can give him the Quade Cooper treatment and boo him everytime he touches the ball?
Hopefully the Irish will start this weekend
Would love to see the look on his Dad's face if it does happen
-
They have set a dangerous precedent now for the world cup just around the corner,
Any high tackles and people will be expecting leniency using this as the most recent example ,
Can of worms
@kiwiinmelb said in Rugby World Cup news:
They have set a dangerous precedent now for the world cup just around the corner,
Any high tackles and people will be expecting leniency using this as the most recent example ,
Can of worms
No, precedent had already been set, it is just so often ignored by the judiciary. Its like they never look at other decisions, and start from scratch every time, bizarre. Nothing has changed about the results of these panels
-
World Rugby distancing themselves from the decision already. Pro-World Rugby sources are saying the independent panel was put together by Six Nations Rugby. Utter farce!
-
World Rugby distancing themselves from the decision already. Pro-World Rugby sources are saying the independent panel was put together by Six Nations Rugby. Utter farce!
@sparky said in Rugby World Cup news:
World Rugby distancing themselves from the decision already. Pro-World Rugby sources are saying the independent panel was put together by Six Nations Rugby. Utter farce!
If 6N put that together then you would have assumed that Farrell would have been banned
