• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Rugby World Cup general discussion

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
rwc
1.2k Posts 82 Posters 97.9k Views
Rugby World Cup general discussion
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    wrote on last edited by
    #348

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/300951117/england-captain-owen-farrell-must-be-banned--for-the-sake-of-rugby

    The Rugby Football Union insists it is listening, reiterating just this week a commitment to lower tackle height, with the intention of eliminating up to 4,000 head injuries a year. And yet it has just enlisted a barrister to argue, successfully, that Farrell should be exonerated for smashing into Basham’s head with such force that the Welsh back-rower failed a concussion protocol. What, pray, is the aim here? Is it truly to champion the cause of player welfare? Or is it simply to make sure that good old Owen makes it to Marseille on time?

    1 Reply Last reply
    8
  • Dan54D Offline
    Dan54D Offline
    Dan54
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #349

    @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 guilty

    The 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.

    StargazerS MiketheSnowM 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to Dan54 on last edited by
    #350

    @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.

    canefanC Dan54D 2 Replies Last reply
    9
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by canefan
    #351

    @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

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • Dan54D Offline
    Dan54D Offline
    Dan54
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by Dan54
    #352

    @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.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble
    wrote on last edited by
    #353

    someone just reminded me Angus Ta'avao got three weeks for an accident head clash, just negligence compared to OF's deliberate shoulder charge

    mariner4lifeM 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • mariner4lifeM Online
    mariner4lifeM Online
    mariner4life
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #354

    @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

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • B Offline
    B Offline
    bayimports
    wrote on last edited by
    #355

    I would even suggest as a multiple repeated offence that would even get a ban in league, not his first rodeo

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • kiwiinmelbK Offline
    kiwiinmelbK Offline
    kiwiinmelb
    wrote on last edited by
    #356

    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

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • TimT Away
    TimT Away
    Tim
    replied to sparky on last edited by
    #357

    @sparky There is an appalling bias against PI teams.

    canefanC 1 Reply Last reply
    12
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    replied to Tim on last edited by
    #358

    @Tim said in Rugby World Cup news:

    @sparky There is an appalling bias against PI teams.

    I'd include us in that....

    1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    wrote on last edited by
    #359

    The French hate the English anyway, maybe the crowd can give him the Quade Cooper treatment and boo him everytime he touches the ball?

    MiketheSnowM 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • TimT Away
    TimT Away
    Tim
    wrote on last edited by
    #360

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • N Offline
    N Offline
    Nevorian
    replied to Chris B. on last edited by
    #361

    @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.C 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • Chris B.C Offline
    Chris B.C Offline
    Chris B.
    replied to Nevorian on last edited by
    #362

    @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!

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnow
    replied to Dan54 on last edited by
    #363

    @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 guilty

    The 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?

    Dan54D 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnow
    replied to canefan on last edited by MiketheSnow
    #364

    @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

    canefanC 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    Machpants
    replied to kiwiinmelb on last edited by
    #365

    @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

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • sparkyS Offline
    sparkyS Offline
    sparky
    wrote on last edited by
    #366

    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!

    BonesB MiketheSnowM 2 Replies Last reply
    3
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to sparky on last edited by
    #367

    @sparky all good unless it's an AB, got it.

    1 Reply Last reply
    3

Rugby World Cup general discussion
Sports Talk
rwc
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.