Blues vs Crusaders



  • @machpants said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    Parson is a knob, keep that stuff in house. Have a whinge to ABs management or call up franks and give him a rocket. Crying to the press cos he's got sand in his lady parts, FFS pathetic.

    I don’t see anything wrong with how Parsons replied to the journalist.

    His main point was about the lack of a red card during the game. With the farcical ruling about the set piece preventing further action.

    If a ref sees a red card offence, even five mins later, for the protection of the players it should be given. What if Franks had stomped the head instead of the swinging arm to the head? Should we just shrug it off?

    As for the reduction of the penalty, and the fantasy apology, I’m happy for it to be called out. We shouldn’t be happy that the process is a joke because it’s helping us in this instance.



  • @stargazer said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    That's what you get when you never take off your scrum cap. He probably just didn't hear Franks say sorry. He should learn to lip read!

    I’m more worried that one of these Crusader props will act like thugs for the ABs and cost a Test match. It would be a shitty way to lose the Blesisloe.



  • @kirwan given we usually see the reasoning behind reduction in every sanction, which usually includes a good record, remorse, early guilty plea and an apology...maybe SANZAR just released the same BS they normally do without one even being made?

    Still reckon Parsons is a sook, should just take it up with NZR, RPA or someone, same place most work related issues are dealt with, your employer, not the media.



  • "The apology" is only one of several mitigating factors. I doubt it would have made a difference for the length of the suspension.



  • @taniwharugby said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    @kirwan given we usually see the reasoning behind reduction in every sanction, which usually includes a good record, remorse, early guilty plea and an apology...maybe SANZAR just released the same BS they normally do without one even being made?

    Still reckon Parsons is a sook, should just take it up with NZR, RPA or someone, same place most work related issues are dealt with, your employer, not the media.

    Doesn’t he have a history of being out with concussion? Maybe he’s pissed off that he wasn’t protected on the field by a blatant red card offence, and then they slapped him with a wet bus ticket after the game?

    I get he’s not a well liked player, but I think he has a point.



  • Apologising should have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, remove the pretence and have shows of remorse take 10% off. So a ban needs to be more than a couple of months for your regret to count.



  • @kirwan but the on-field decision vs the sanction are separate issues.

    Simple fact is, the judiciary has long been a bit of a joke, so this shouldn't really surprise you!



  • @kirwan said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    @machpants said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    If a ref sees a red card offence, even five mins later, for the protection of the players it should be given. What if Franks had stomped the head instead of the swinging arm to the head? Should we just shrug it off?

    Once the act has been done, a red card is not usually going to protect the players - unless you think the guy is a psychopath, who's going to keep maiming people until he's stopped.

    On your other point - suppose it's the RWC final and someone does something in the first five minutes that doesn't get discovered until the 70th minute. They stick it up on the big screen and the ref decides it's only a yellow card offence - does he still bin the player at a markedly different point in the game?

    Even worse, suppose one of the opposition has retaliated to that incident and his retaliation has warranted a red card (again only discovered in the 70th minute), but that guy has already been subbed so can't be sent off.



  • Did anyone hear the interview? Did Parsons know when the question was asked whether Franks used it in his defence?



  • @kirwan said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    @stargazer said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    That's what you get when you never take off your scrum cap. He probably just didn't hear Franks say sorry. He should learn to lip read!

    I’m more worried that one of these Crusader props will act like thugs for the ABs and cost a Test match. It would be a shitty way to lose the Blesisloe.

    Crusader props?
    Playing in the NZ rugby team
    Let's leave identity politics out of rugby eh



  • @siam It's not just the Crusaders' props. It's SBW, who already cost us a Lions series. And what about bloody Ben Smith - if it weren't that Danny Boy was so great he could have cost us the World Cup final.

    Let's leave them all out - in case they cost us the Bled! Get Sam Prattley in there! 🙂



  • @nepia said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    Did anyone hear the interview? Did Parsons know when the question was asked whether Franks used it in his defence?

    The audio: http://www.radiosport.co.nz/on-air/darcy-and-goran/audio/james-parsons-i-havent-received-an-apology/



  • @stargazer Doesn't sound like he turned up to drop Owen in the shit. Merely an interviewer clued enough to follow the rabbit down the warren.



  • @antipodean my question is, did he really tell the judiciary he had said sorry or is this just a standard response SANZAR put out and didn't even fact check in the media release given we hear pretty much the same 4 factors trotted out after each hearing.

    The other thing is, as teams are shaking hands, maybe a shake, a bit of a sad look and nod, to a Neanderthal like Owen may be considered an apology 😉

    Geez, I remember last time a rugby player demanded an apology...that didn't go on very long 🎣



  • @stargazer said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    @nepia said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    Did anyone hear the interview? Did Parsons know when the question was asked whether Franks used it in his defence?

    The audio: http://www.radiosport.co.nz/on-air/darcy-and-goran/audio/james-parsons-i-havent-received-an-apology/

    Cheers, but I wasn't looking to listen myself - was hoping someone who listened would give the info. 😉



  • So Franks tried to apologise - he reached out - but Parsons brushed him off and didn't give him the opportunity to apologise, according to rugby lawyer Aaron Lloyd on the Short Ball podcast (episode 18).



  • Fuck who cares. As @antipodean said an apology shouldn't factor into thr sentencing at all. The judiciary is a joke.



  • @no-quarter Stuff care!



  • Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.

    Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.



  • It’s a complete overkill. Franks tried to clean out, made contact with head. Yes red card but accidental, and some coaching on technique required. Unfortunate that refs missed it but with so much happening on field this will happen. No problem with judiciary giving a couple of weeks for accidental contact. It’s not tiddly winks and sometimes stuff happens. This doesn’t make the Crusaders dirty. It does mean any players involved need to take note and work to improve technique.



  • @majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.

    Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.

    What is relevant is if Franks is a good Christian.



  • @majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.

    Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.

    What if they write a heartfelt letter and put it on social media?



  • @no-quarter said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    @majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.

    Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.

    What if they write a heartfelt letter and put it on social media?

    Dunno if you knew this or not ... but apparently Franks lack of social media skills was mentioned by the lawyer ...



  • @act-crusader said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    @majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:

    Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.

    Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.

    What is relevant is if Franks is a good Christian.

    Depends on the judiciary's point of view I suppose ... he's either

    1. Retarded for believing in a fairy in the sky
    2. Retarded for being an infidel
    3. Worth of sentence reduction and going into credit.

    Not the best odds.


Log in to reply