Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
Moala's appeal has been dismissed. So still the 5-week suspension.
The games he has missed/will still miss:
Tonga v Canada – 15 August, 2023
Clermont Auvergne v Perpignan – 26 August, 2023
Ireland v Tonga – 16 September, 2023
Scotland v Tonga – 24 September, 2023
South Africa v Tonga – 1 October, 2023 -
Moala's appeal has been dismissed. So still the 5-week suspension.
The games he has missed/will still miss:
Tonga v Canada – 15 August, 2023
Clermont Auvergne v Perpignan – 26 August, 2023
Ireland v Tonga – 16 September, 2023
Scotland v Tonga – 24 September, 2023
South Africa v Tonga – 1 October, 2023@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
Moala's appeal has been dismissed. So still the 5-week suspension.
The games he has missed/will still miss:
Tonga v Canada – 15 August, 2023
Clermont Auvergne v Perpignan – 26 August, 2023
Ireland v Tonga – 16 September, 2023
Scotland v Tonga – 24 September, 2023
South Africa v Tonga – 1 October, 2023Fucking disgrace
And I would gladly say that to both faces of each person of the committee which came to that conclusion
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
Moala's appeal has been dismissed. So still the 5-week suspension.
The games he has missed/will still miss:
Tonga v Canada – 15 August, 2023
Clermont Auvergne v Perpignan – 26 August, 2023
Ireland v Tonga – 16 September, 2023
Scotland v Tonga – 24 September, 2023
South Africa v Tonga – 1 October, 2023Fucking disgrace
And I would gladly say that to both faces of each person of the committee which came to that conclusion
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
Moala's appeal has been dismissed. So still the 5-week suspension.
The games he has missed/will still miss:
Tonga v Canada – 15 August, 2023
Clermont Auvergne v Perpignan – 26 August, 2023
Ireland v Tonga – 16 September, 2023
Scotland v Tonga – 24 September, 2023
South Africa v Tonga – 1 October, 2023Fucking disgrace
And I would gladly say that to both faces of each person of the committee which came to that conclusion
Clearly the outrage level is not high enough to pressure them into a change
-
As the Canadian player was considered to have landed on his head, I think that starting from the mid-range point for Moala's suspension was correct: that's 10 weeks (Law 9.18). He got the full 50% deduction for mitigating factors. This is entirely consistent with the guidelines and previous cases.
I really don't know how often I have to explain this, but Farrell and Vunipola's offending (dangerous = high tackle) falls under a different law (Law 9.13), which has a different mid-range starting point of 6 weeks.
Vunipola got the full 50% deduction, so his suspension ended up at 3 weeks. Getting tackle lessons is another game deduction: 2 weeks.Farrell didn't get the full deduction. He ended up with a 4 week suspension. I think there's room for an argument that that should have been 5, but that's about it.
The process - after the appeal procedures - has had the right outcome from a procedural and applicable law point of view. The criticism of the judiciary is ridiculous, but done out of lack of understanding of the process and the applicable Laws.
What should be on World Rugby's table is that a mid-range starting point is used/recommended for shoulder hits to the head. IMO, they should either prescribe that in those cases a high-range starting point should be applied (10+ weeks) or they should raise the mid-range starting point for this particular offence.
-
As the Canadian player was considered to have landed on his head, I think that starting from the mid-range point for Moala's suspension was correct: that's 10 weeks (Law 9.18). He got the full 50% deduction for mitigating factors. This is entirely consistent with the guidelines and previous cases.
I really don't know how often I have to explain this, but Farrell and Vunipola's offending (dangerous = high tackle) falls under a different law (Law 9.13), which has a different mid-range starting point of 6 weeks.
Vunipola got the full 50% deduction, so his suspension ended up at 3 weeks. Getting tackle lessons is another game deduction: 2 weeks.Farrell didn't get the full deduction. He ended up with a 4 week suspension. I think there's room for an argument that that should have been 5, but that's about it.
The process - after the appeal procedures - has had the right outcome from a procedural and applicable law point of view. The criticism of the judiciary is ridiculous, but done out of lack of understanding of the process and the applicable Laws.
What should be on World Rugby's table is that a mid-range starting point is used/recommended for shoulder hits to the head. IMO, they should either prescribe that in those cases a high-range starting point should be applied (10+ weeks) or they should raise the mid-range starting point for this particular offence.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
I really don't know how often I have to explain this, but
I'm gonna say that ain't the last.
I think the main difference from Farrels and other attempted tackles, is there was zero attempt to wrap, so wasn't an attempted tackle, purely a shoulder charge with direct contact to the head, imo these should be looked at differently
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
I really don't know how often I have to explain this, but
I'm gonna say that ain't the last.
I think the main difference from Farrels and other attempted tackles, is there was zero attempt to wrap, so wasn't an attempted tackle, purely a shoulder charge with direct contact to the head, imo these should be looked at differently
@taniwharugby The lack of attempt to wrap was the reason why it was a red card and why the appeals committee upheld the appeal.
-
i honestly dont get how things work, actual direct contact to the head gets less than a dangerous tackle that resulted in the head hitting the ground after shoulder contact etc
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
i honestly dont get how things work, actual direct contact to the head gets less than a dangerous tackle that resulted in the head hitting the ground after shoulder contact etc
I actually think Kiwi whatever we think of cases, without being stupid ,the end result could well of been Farrell knocked his fella out. Moala's could of ended up in wheelchair with a broken neck.
I admit to being real leery of broken necks having being on a sideline when a young fella broke his neck (not from tackle), the a year later a young fella I had coached at times as a kid, and a mate of son (platyed in a couple of teams with him) also ended up in a wheelchair in a dangerous tackle in a league game (he was only 20) , and also had a situation where own son had a suspected broken neck in a college game, (scaredest I ever been in my life in the ambulance on way to hospital.
Only explained that in why I think tip tackles are so bad, in no way playing down on risk of brain injuies etc, and agree high shots also have to be jumped on!! -
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
i honestly dont get how things work, actual direct contact to the head gets less than a dangerous tackle that resulted in the head hitting the ground after shoulder contact etc
I actually think Kiwi whatever we think of cases, without being stupid ,the end result could well of been Farrell knocked his fella out. Moala's could of ended up in wheelchair with a broken neck.
I admit to being real leery of broken necks having being on a sideline when a young fella broke his neck (not from tackle), the a year later a young fella I had coached at times as a kid, and a mate of son (platyed in a couple of teams with him) also ended up in a wheelchair in a dangerous tackle in a league game (he was only 20) , and also had a situation where own son had a suspected broken neck in a college game, (scaredest I ever been in my life in the ambulance on way to hospital.
Only explained that in why I think tip tackles are so bad, in no way playing down on risk of brain injuies etc, and agree high shots also have to be jumped on!! -
Rhys Webb tests positive for Human Growth Hormone.
https://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Rhys-webb-biarritz-positif-a-l-hormone-de-croissance/1415831
-
Rhys Webb tests positive for Human Growth Hormone.
https://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Rhys-webb-biarritz-positif-a-l-hormone-de-croissance/1415831
@sparky said in Rugby World Cup news:
Rhys Webb tests positive for Human Growth Hormone.
https://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Rhys-webb-biarritz-positif-a-l-hormone-de-croissance/1415831
Bit late
He’s too old to grow any taller
Imbecile
That’s his career over
-
And I should clarify , he retired from international Rugby in May so he wasn’t going to play in the RWC.
@sparky said in Rugby World Cup news:
And I should clarify , he retired from international Rugby in May so he wasn’t going to play in the RWC.
Biaritz should have been his pension
Fucking idiot
-
@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.
@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 am sure the replies were just made in ouma.
