Bitter IRB chief declares war on All Blacks

First topic message reminder :

Well, if the citing commissioner's show any consistency then Adam Thompson can't get more than a two week ban. Which should be reduced to one on the basis of his clean record. So he should just miss the Italy game.

Any more than that, and the "open season on McCaw Sponsored by the IRB" drums will surely start to beat louder.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
What really disturbs me is your notion that the IRB give New Zealand (the All Blacks ) preferential treatment in the shape of the Haka, and that discretion is repaid to other countries, when it comes to dealing with citings or outcomes of judicial hearings, in dealing with matters of foul play.

Do you not think that on field matters, during the course of play (allegations of foul play) are completely different to off field matters.

anotherworldofpain wrote:How is it lenient Biltong? The entry point for use of the boot is 2 weeks. I've never seen a boot placed on another person in a more dainty way outside of the ballet.

In comparison with some of the dross penalties handed out for genuine incidents in recent times it is insanely hash. To see the IRB now step in is just ridiculous beyond reason.

I'm not surprised that Brit media have gone off on one with Brian Moore leading the charge though. They never let reality or logic get in the way of sticking the boot into the ABs when they're on tour.

AWOP, compere the incident to Etzebeth's non headbutt, Sharpe tainted him as he knew it was a young bull in a china shop, he knew he would get a reaction out of the newly capped youngster, eventually Etzebeth reacted with a aim and suggestion of a headbutt.

He never hit him or made contact, he got two weeks, we can all agree it was a mere "warning" or "suggestive" headbutt, but no contact. He got the two match ban for the intent (which is ridiculous as there cannot be intent without contact)

In this case there was contact with the boot, irrespective of how subtle it was, yet only a week.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:How is it lenient Biltong? The entry point for use of the boot is 2 weeks. I've never seen a boot placed on another person in a more dainty way outside of the ballet.

In comparison with some of the dross penalties handed out for genuine incidents in recent times it is insanely hash. To see the IRB now step in is just ridiculous beyond reason.

I'm not surprised that Brit media have gone off on one with Brian Moore leading the charge though.

Leading the charge, by that you mean a couple tweets. People would respect your posts on here more if you didn't try and over exaggerate everything to try and support you point.

Ad hominem.

And?

So one week is insanely harsh for a stamp to the head. And anyone questioning this sentence is guilty of a deliberate and sustained attack on the ABs. Geez, what paranoid world do you live in? I'm embarrassed for you.

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:How is it lenient Biltong? The entry point for use of the boot is 2 weeks. I've never seen a boot placed on another person in a more dainty way outside of the ballet.

In comparison with some of the dross penalties handed out for genuine incidents in recent times it is insanely hash. To see the IRB now step in is just ridiculous beyond reason.

I'm not surprised that Brit media have gone off on one with Brian Moore leading the charge though.

Leading the charge, by that you mean a couple tweets. People would respect your posts on here more if you didn't try and over exaggerate everything to try and support you point.

Ad hominem.

And?

It means your arugment is a fallacy. But thanks for playing.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
What really disturbs me is your notion that the IRB give New Zealand (the All Blacks ) preferential treatment in the shape of the Haka, and that discretion is repaid to other countries, when it comes to dealing with citings or outcomes of judicial hearings, in dealing with matters of foul play.

Do you not think that on field matters, during the course of play (allegations of foul play) are completely different to off field matters.

Geez, you love turning words don't you?

find where I said they get preferential treatment.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
What really disturbs me is your notion that the IRB give New Zealand (the All Blacks ) preferential treatment in the shape of the Haka, and that discretion is repaid to other countries, when it comes to dealing with citings or outcomes of judicial hearings, in dealing with matters of foul play.

Do you not think that on field matters, during the course of play (allegations of foul play) are completely different to off field matters.

But all he said was the irb have stuck up for the all blacks in the past and gave an example of the haka. At which point did he say they get preferential treatment? He didn't.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:How is it lenient Biltong? The entry point for use of the boot is 2 weeks. I've never seen a boot placed on another person in a more dainty way outside of the ballet.

In comparison with some of the dross penalties handed out for genuine incidents in recent times it is insanely hash. To see the IRB now step in is just ridiculous beyond reason.

I'm not surprised that Brit media have gone off on one with Brian Moore leading the charge though.

Leading the charge, by that you mean a couple tweets. People would respect your posts on here more if you didn't try and over exaggerate everything to try and support you point.

Ad hominem.

And?

It means your arugment is a fallacy. But thanks for playing.

I'm very well aware of what it means, you lose. Love how your English has improved no end, or have you just decided to stop playing that silly childish game?

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
What really disturbs me is your notion that the IRB give New Zealand (the All Blacks ) preferential treatment in the shape of the Haka, and that discretion is repaid to other countries, when it comes to dealing with citings or outcomes of judicial hearings, in dealing with matters of foul play.

Do you not think that on field matters, during the course of play (allegations of foul play) are completely different to off field matters.

But all he said was the irb have stuck up for the all blacks in the past and gave an example of the haka. At which point did he say they get preferential treatment? He didn't.

He said they "defended and protected the Haka." Which aside from being untrue is either irrelevant or can only be interpreted in the context that Laurie has pointed out.

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:How is it lenient Biltong? The entry point for use of the boot is 2 weeks. I've never seen a boot placed on another person in a more dainty way outside of the ballet.

In comparison with some of the dross penalties handed out for genuine incidents in recent times it is insanely hash. To see the IRB now step in is just ridiculous beyond reason.

I'm not surprised that Brit media have gone off on one with Brian Moore leading the charge though.

Leading the charge, by that you mean a couple tweets. People would respect your posts on here more if you didn't try and over exaggerate everything to try and support you point.

Ad hominem.

And?

It means your arugment is a fallacy. But thanks for playing.

I'm very well aware of what it means, you lose. Love how your English has improved no end, or have you just decided to stop playing that silly childish game?

Ad hominem.

biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
What really disturbs me is your notion that the IRB give New Zealand (the All Blacks ) preferential treatment in the shape of the Haka, and that discretion is repaid to other countries, when it comes to dealing with citings or outcomes of judicial hearings, in dealing with matters of foul play.

Do you not think that on field matters, during the course of play (allegations of foul play) are completely different to off field matters.

But all he said was the irb have stuck up for the all blacks in the past and gave an example of the haka. At which point did he say they get preferential treatment? He didn't.

He said they "defended and protected the Haka." Which aside from being untrue is either irrelevant or can only be interpreted in the context that Laurie has pointed out.

So your now saying that defending and protecting the haka is the same as preferential treatment?

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Quick change of tack there!

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Quick change of tack there!

No its not a change of tack at all.its all part and parcel of the same incident.

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
What really disturbs me is your notion that the IRB give New Zealand (the All Blacks ) preferential treatment in the shape of the Haka, and that discretion is repaid to other countries, when it comes to dealing with citings or outcomes of judicial hearings, in dealing with matters of foul play.

Do you not think that on field matters, during the course of play (allegations of foul play) are completely different to off field matters.

But all he said was the irb have stuck up for the all blacks in the past and gave an example of the haka. At which point did he say they get preferential treatment? He didn't.

He said they "defended and protected the Haka." Which aside from being untrue is either irrelevant or can only be interpreted in the context that Laurie has pointed out.

So your now saying that defending and protecting the haka is the same as preferential treatment?

No. I'm saying that it's not true. And if it were true, it isn't a reason to valid unscrupulous disciplinary treatment.

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Aucklandlaurie, this is my last say in this matter as this is going in circles.

Rewind to SA vs All Blacks, Dean Greyling is facing a similar situation, he goes for Richie McCaw, a despicable act, he is banned (not long enough in my opinion, however Meyer sent him packing so he isn't playing Bok rugby anymore, hopefully he never will again) then fast forward to last weekend, the act was not as agressive, yet outside the law. Same scenario applies though. It is wrong and should be banned. In my view one week is lenient.

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

Ad Hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

Arrogance, not at all. I fail to see why the top referees in the game dont referee the team(s).

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Aucklandlaurie, this is my last say in this matter as this is going in circles.

Rewind to SA vs All Blacks, Dean Greyling is facing a similar situation, he goes for Richie McCaw, a despicable act, he is banned (not long enough in my opinion, however Meyer sent him packing so he isn't playing Bok rugby anymore, hopefully he never will again) then fast forward to last weekend, the act was not as agressive, yet outside the law. Same scenario applies though. It is wrong and should be banned. In my view one week is lenient.

You are consistent indeed Biltong. I'd be more concerned by the absence of ruling on the apparent punch that preceded the non-event that was the rucking, but however I'll defer judgement until I've read the actual ruling.

http://www.3news.co.nz/France-fined-for-haka-stunt/tabid/1534/articleID/230610/Default.aspx

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

Ad Hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

I have to read your cack so you can read some of mine.

Biltong wrote:http://www.3news.co.nz/France-fined-for-haka-stunt/tabid/1534/articleID/230610/Default.aspx

Oh well then, ban all of the All Blacks for a week, and ban Thomson for a month! It's only fair after the IRB graciously fined France on behalf of NZ.

This line of argument discredits your valid point on the general leniance of recent disciplinary rulings in my opinion Biltong.

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

Ad Hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

I have to read your cack so you can read some of mine.

Ad hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Aucklandlaurie, this is my last say in this matter as this is going in circles.

Rewind to SA vs All Blacks, Dean Greyling is facing a similar situation, he goes for Richie McCaw, a despicable act, he is banned (not long enough in my opinion, however Meyer sent him packing so he isn't playing Bok rugby anymore, hopefully he never will again) then fast forward to last weekend, the act was not as agressive, yet outside the law. Same scenario applies though. It is wrong and should be banned. In my view one week is lenient.

Biltong

Your comparing apples with watermelons.

The greyling incident was nowhere near the ball, McCaw was well outside of the ruck. he intentionally had a "go" at McCaw.

Thomson was being deprived access to the ball, he was trying to get to the ball, there was no attempt to assault with intent to injure.

To jump to the conclusion that Thomson's ban is lenient on that basis is faulty.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

Ad Hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

I have to read your cack so you can read some of mine.

Ad hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

Someone just hit the ban button again on this guy!

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

Ad Hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

I have to read your cack so you can read some of mine.

Ad hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

Someone just hit the ban button again on this guy!

Ad Hominem.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong

You seem to be missing the point that Strokosh was lying completely over the ball with his head and throat, making no attempt to move away, yet depriving the ABs from any access to the ball.

A competent referee would have said "its not coming out of there" and awarded the ABs a scrum.

Let us reflect that the referee in question was yet another baby foisted on the ABs. Why oh why do NZ find themselves the testing ground for NH referees with such disasterous consequences? It smacks of disrespect.

Arrogance with a hint of small man syndrome (I don't mean the midget/dwarf type)

Ad Hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

I have to read your cack so you can read some of mine.

Ad hominem. Please come back when you want to debate points and not sling insults.

Someone just hit the ban button again on this guy!

Ad Hominem.

Ad Hominem

Guys, this is getting ridiculous now, get back to the debate or this thread will go for lockdown.

In my opinion it is inconsistent for the IRB to intervene in this disciplinary outcome.

The existing one week ban is consistent with both the act of foul play and recent bans imposed for similar actions, possibly erring on the harsh side given the inconsequential nature of the action.

Furthermore I contend that the "outrage" expressed by some NH rugby commentators and journalists is misplaced.

Biltong wrote:Guys, this is getting ridiculous now, get back to the debate or this thread will go for lockdown.

Ive actually been trying to debate the issue, as I know that if I upset you, I might find myself banned.

Firstly, please desist with the personal attacks.

Secondly, the issue in hand is the IRB's sudden intervention in an already complete diciplinary process.

Odd timing, you must agree? Or has the new boy at the top of the IRB just blundered in his first day on the job by wading in somewhere that he has no business to be?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:Guys, this is getting ridiculous now, get back to the debate or this thread will go for lockdown.

Ive actually been trying to debate the issue, as I know that if I upset you, I might find myself banned.

I have never banned you, also when I find I am running in circles with you, I simply withdraw and kick the stuffed dog around until I calm down.

PJ

I'm sorry Biltong, but as long as posters make personal attacks on me rather than arguing the point, I'm going to call them out on it. I'm a bit tired of waiting for the hand of justice to intervene on my behalf...perhaps it's pay back for the time I was allowed to perform a Haka?

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:Guys, this is getting ridiculous now, get back to the debate or this thread will go for lockdown.

Ive actually been trying to debate the issue, as I know that if I upset you, I might find myself banned.

I have never banned you, also when I find I am running in circles with you, I simply withdraw and kick the stuffed dog around until I calm down.

I never said you banned me..

Run, Rover, Run...

AWOP Dont react.

Come on PJ, that is not acceptable

Biltong wrote:Come on PJ, that is not acceptable

Indeed - absolutely out of order. disagree, get heated if you must but give over with the insults

So on another topic, I heard Thomson got a one week ban today and the new IRB chief is suggesting that the organisation may "review" the decision.

What are your opinions on that?

It is of course unclear what might be meant by "review". The IRB have been claiming since the Rougerie incident that the entire disciplinary process may be overhauled, and in the light of numerous recent apparent inconsistencies perhaps that might not be a bad course of action for a new chief to stamp his mark on?

It's also been suggested that the IRB review may be a trading card for allowing the Haka to be performed. Ok I'm kidding about that last point.

Given up, don't care.

Apparently, Brett Gosper said on twitter "That the case will be reviewed" This announcement was made after Thompsons' plane had taken off to Italy.

Yes I'm just reading that. It will be reviewed and the outcome will be publicised if the length of the ban is affected.

This is clearly not a review of the disciplinary process but a review of this specific case.

That is a disasterous mistake for him to have made. It effectively undermines the entire disciplinary process. The timing and case selection seems odd. Just when you thought the IRB couldn't get any more farcical. Do you think it's just because he's an Aussie and upset about the BC?

Thread cleaned up, it is up to you guys whether it remains open, if things get personal again, I will lock it permanently.

Can anyone tell me if the IRB has reviewed a decision before? I'm doubting it. Personally, I think the ban was light. I don't think as 1 match suspension sends the right message to other players and teams. It also sets a descendent that can be used in future hearings. However, it did go to a hearing and the hearing took place in Europe under the auspices of the 6 nations. Hardly a friendly place for the All Blacks. I'm therefore assuming that there were valid reasons.

Not that I know of, this is a first.

It'll be interesting to see the transcript. Personally I thought there was nothing in the boot, it was more of a warning, and clearly the Scotsman was in an illegal spot.

In comparison to some recent rulings it was not lenient.

My feeling is the entire process should be reviewed, we've seen some shockers from a lot of nations, NZ included.

Indeed. although there is guidence it does seem to be too inconsistent - I have seen it both ways leniency and harshness.

Maybe this willled to a review that leads to greater consistency

bcl - matters of foul play are routinely reviewed, and players/clubs/teams can appeal a decision. Maybe the IRB have recourse to such a process if they feel that a particular decision is inappropriate to the act.

I cast no judgement on this decision as I haven't seen the reasoning behind it (if it was posted earlier I didn't read back).

While we are not dealing with the law of any land here, it is normal for both parties to have an appeal process, even if it is part of their own organisation that has made the initial judgement.

If that makes sense.