How did they come up with that?

I've been reading a few articles Today about Cooper getting off following his citing.  Disregarding the incident itself, the thing that stands out from all the comment sections is that rugby fans are confused about the inconsistency of the handling of foul play.  

I might be missing the mark with this article, and if so, id appreciate someone pointing me in the direction of where i can find the kind of explanation im talking about.  However, using google I tried (and failed) to find an explanation of how the judiciary arrived at the decision to not suspend him.  All I can find is a pattern of short news releases saying he got off, followed by the journos saying their bit, followed by others basing their comments off what the journos said, and adding a little bit more.  None of it includes any explanation of the decision, and if it does, it's something meaningless like it wasn't intentional.  my response to that is - good news for us, but how did you decide it wasn't intentional?  

Being an aussie, its obvious to me that in this case that they made the 100% correct decision , but there are many decisions that still get discussed months on from the event.  How did they decide Schalk wasn't after Fitz's eye's?  That Woodcock wasn't being malicious in his shot on Sai'a?  Why did Saint Kevin get reduced?  What was different in Bakies hit on Jones compared to all the other clearances?  Why did the French guy get 20 weeks and Sergio 8?

I completely understand that members of a rugby tribunal cannot be held to the same standards as a judge, so I'm not suggesting publishing court reports, but would it be too much to provide a little more transparency?  One answer could be a transcript of the hearing, but i imagine this could also prove prejudicial to the defendant if a victim decided to try their luck in the courts over an incident. Better to take two weeks unfairly than to risk incriminating yourself for possible civil action. Nor do I think we need an explanation of every '2 weeks for a spear tackle' case.

Bottom line is though that I really believe they need to do something to help us better understand the decisions they are making.  They are hurting the game.

good point Boomer, trouble is there are too many cases where they dont even give "the Offender" reasons for their decisions,so what are they going to tell us mere mortals.

Even as an aussie its clear the increasingly big headed Cooper kneed Richie on purpose

Its a sad day to see that go unpunished - I might be way off the mark here for once but I wonder if he would have had a severe suspension if the RWC wasn't around the corner - Just a thought

The fact that the World Cup starts next weekend shouldn't have come into it - but it's not surprising that it has.

The RFU and ERC always publish the report which details the evidence, their decision and the formation of the banning. Who carries out the citing? Is it the IRB or SANZAR? Their website might hold the details.

Bullsbok wrote:Even as an aussie its clear the increasingly big headed Cooper kneed Richie on purpose

No worse than Hartley's shot at McCaw last autumn. Neither faced any consequences.

Yep. McCaw can't buy a good decision at the moment.

Perhaps the referees have been influenced by the crescendo of absurd newspaper articles, such as the drivel published by that English !%@£"!* who lives in New Zealand.

It is due to the citing commisions often being part the country that the person is from, so they make it up as they go along.

As someone said it is so fixed on the world cup coming up, that if it was that countries star player, they would unlikely get a ban, even if they god a M16 and shot the whole other team - and even then would suprisingly end the day before the key game.

It is one of the things that is bringing the game into disrupute and needs to change

It would help if:

a) there was a fixed penalty for each offence;

b) these were enforced without exception.

But we won't see that any time soon.

One word - BOD - Karma is still paying out

Yeah, that's how it should work. Mysticism and astrology.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yeah, that's how it should work. Mysticism and astrology.

Like tribal wardances before a match ?

Munkian, your point borders on ignorance.

As does that stupid dancing smiley.

Pot Kettle dude

I didn't use the stupid dancing smiley.

No, you used the terribly clever Nottins staple of Piccard.

You are clearly a scholar and intellectual giant...

I didn't get personal munkian.

Anyway, back on topic. It's clearly a travesty that Cooper wasn't suspended for a deliberate knee to the head of McCaw.

Didn't he also escape last year after initially being banned for 2 games?

TheGreyGhost wrote:I didn't use the stupid dancing.

Unlike the All Blacks

Very humorous dgOB, but you've clearly mis-quoted me.

boomeranga wrote: Why did the French guy get 20 weeks and Sergio 8?

An iRB directive was issued after the Burger, Parisse and Quinlan hearings telling unions to hand out tougher sentences because 8 week bans weren't acceptable. Dupuy and Attoub's incidents were after this directive so they paid the price more than most.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yep. McCaw can't buy a good decision at the moment.

Perhaps the referees have been influenced by the crescendo of absurd newspaper articles, such as the drivel published by that English !%@£"!* who lives in New Zealand.

We had to send someone over there to balance the equation.....

If you were a totally impartial judge, and you had absolutely no knowledge of the previous between Cooper and McCaw. Surely this incident, seen in isolation, can easily be explained away as Cooper just trying to get up.

Surely we are all inferring Cooper's guilt from his previous conduct with McCaw. I have replayed the 'knee' a few times now and by itself, is fairly innocuous.

If the powers that be were to penalise this, I fear it would open the floodgates for some fairly spurious allegations.

Have a look at it again and try and eradicate all knowledge you have of the players involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9RYZStDdDI

To me it seems premeditated, he looked at the spot and then he kneed him there. For me it's an isue because it's aimed at the head of a player. I can understanded the arguement against though. I think the independent assessors is the way to go. I think we all want more transparency on the decisions, i.e. the reasons. I 'd also like an published IRB review of the decisions internationally.

PerryGee wrote:If you were a totally impartial judge, and you had absolutely no knowledge of the previous between Cooper and McCaw. Surely this incident, seen in isolation, can easily be explained away as Cooper just trying to get up.

Surely we are all inferring Cooper's guilt from his previous conduct with McCaw. I have replayed the 'knee' a few times now and by itself, is fairly innocuous.

If the powers that be were to penalise this, I fear it would open the floodgates for some fairly spurious allegations.

Have a look at it again and try and eradicate all knowledge you have of the players involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9RYZStDdDI

I wasn't really aware of any previous issues between the two and caught the game. Thought it was a sly deliberate knee.

Listen, I also think it was, but I don't think I, or anybody else, could conclusively prove it

You're kidding right?

Look at Thorn's reaction. Correct one. The only mistake was not to knock the little Tinkywinky's head off.

Thorn should have been red carded for his unprovoked attack on Cooper.

Well, he only accidentally pushed him over. Rugby's a contact game. He didn't even remember the incident. He was merely trying to get out of the ruck and chase the ball, but Cooper accidentally appeared in front of him.

Shame he didn't accidentally punch him in the head.

Whistle had been blown, so no ruck. Straight red for unprovoked attack after the whistle.

Nottins, your point (as usual) borders on ignorance..

there has been an alarming increase in troll posts in the last 12 hours .Just yesterday i had some bloke say Wales did the Boks a favour by losing to Fiji otherwise the Boks wouldnt have won the WC

Now Brad Thorn should have seen straight red for gently reminding Cooper to stick to the backs and not try start fights with forwards ???

TGG, please stop the personal comments and stay on topic, you've already been warned once on this thread.

Was the ball in play ? No.
Had the whistle gone ? Yes.
Was it a ruck ? No (a ruck is over when the ball leaves the ruck)
Did Thorn attack Cooper after the whistle ? Yes.

Bullsbok wrote:there has been an alarming increase in troll posts in the last 12 hours .Just yesterday i had some bloke say Wales did the Boks a favour by losing to Fiji otherwise the Boks wouldnt have won the WC

Now Brad Thorn should have seen straight red for gently reminding Cooper to stick to the backs and not try start fights with forwards ???

And we also have (NZ) posters on here saying referees should be sacked for making a "mistake"

nottins wrote:TGG, please stop the personal comments and stay on topic, you've already been warned once on this thread.

Was the ball in play ? No.
Had the whistle gone ? Yes.
Was it a ruck ? No (a ruck is over when the ball leaves the ruck)
Did Thorn attack Cooper after the whistle ? Yes.

I'm not really interested in another round of bickering Nottins. I think you are suggesting that Cooper is blameless and Thorn deserved a red card simply to try to provoke me into some kind of silly bickering so you can go running to the mods and try to get me banned.

It you want to talk about rugby let me know, otherwise I'll set you as a foe so I don't have you constantly following me around on this forum trying to provoke me into humoring your attention seeking.

Though when Thorn was playing for the Roos in the late 90's against NZ we were behind his rough justice all the time and all the way!!

Hands up who thinks The Grey Ghost and Nottins should get a room and stop this outrageous flirting on a decent family friendly thread?