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.

I think the transcript will go like this:

1. No injury to the "victim".

2. No intent to injure the "victim" - they will likely take Thomson at face value as he is not a repeat offender (on the field at least).

3. Very little force - dictionary definition - (1) : to strike or beat forcibly with the bottom of the foot (2) : to bring down (the foot) forcibly.

4. Lower end of the scale so starting point is two weeks.

5. "Victim" statement says believed a yellow card was all that was needed.

6. Taking into account all of the above, two-weeks reduced to one.

I think when you look at it like that it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the IRB getting involved - very dangerous precedent and will cause the citing commissioners in future to second guess all their decisions. The equivalent would be if a court of final appeal had to think that the Prime-Minister/President of the country could always review their decisions - if that happened we would be crying foul on the basis of a breach of the Rule of Law. Not good at all this turn of events for anyone.

Adam Thomson suspended for one match in practical terms ,forget the ins and outs.The act was clumsy,without malicious intent no damage was done etc.itwas`nt a kick or a stamp.BUT it was in the area of the head and potentially dangerous.
Fully agree the commission should take every case as it occurs.NOW we are going to get the ANOTHER AllBlack getting away with murder bit.The invisible McCaw protected from IRB rulings as a serial cheat,and bought up like the BOD/Umaga incident again and again.
What has come out of it is again the lack of consistency what is needed is a clear
tariff certain acts certain punishment.That way there will be no more whinging

I see the IRB are going to review the decision.

Not sure about this. Here's my thoughts:

1. He did contact the head, 1 week ban that includes a game he wasn't going to play seems lenient.

2. No malice involved and no injury sustained. So I'm guessing a big ban would have been out of the question.

3. A review of the decision keeps evreyone uncertain

4. It sets a precedent that means that team should be able to ask for a review of a decision.

I don't like this. I want consistency, but I don't want ad hoc reviews under political pressure. We often see decisions we struggle to fathom. These include harsh or light sentences and the failure to cite players for offences, or the citing for marginal offences. I think if we allow reviews like this we should have a process that allows challenges (aka like the court of appeal). Otherwise, we have a process that smacks of political interference and leads to poor governance.

I'd rather see a strategic review of decision quarterly that was published. This would allow the judiciary to make their calls, but highlight inconsistencies or issues at the end of each tour/tournament. Publication would ensure that the decision makers had to raise their game and minimize political bias (Well that's the theory anyway).

Agree.
It does seem strange to review the decision.
I can understand if they want to review the process.

Another Kiwi gets off lightly. What a surprise (NOT).

Why don't the IRB grow some balls when dealing with New Zealand?

One minute we complain about inconsistency, the next we complain that the IRB review decisions and how they were reached to ensure consistency.

I think the entire internet process needs to be overhauled.

Hmmm - Kiwi gets 2 wk ban for stamping on a head.
Ozzie gets 8wk's for a tip tackle!

French gets 0 for eye gouge in RWC, go figure huh? Horribly inconsistent, maybe the head IRB geezer should be the judge of all incidents, do it by twitter.

beshocked wrote:Another Kiwi gets off lightly. What a surprise (NOT).

Why don't the IRB grow some balls when dealing with New Zealand?

because Kiwis by default always deny absolutly everything and therefore the IRB have no option but to give a lenient punishment as it is very difficult to prove intent. A one week ban is too short.

I dont think there was enough force to do damage but the intent was obviously there and a two week ban should have been sanctioned for stupidity alone as this is the minimum for an offence of this type.

Either All Blacks are conditioned to act as machines and always do what their told, supress any morality and dignity and act accordingly when cited due to the weight of expectation of being an All Black and what is expected of them or fear of losing their place in the team or perhaps All blacks are just generally dishonest?

The citing comissioner may in this case also have taken Alasdair Strokosch generous tweets into consideration.

ebop wrote:French gets 0 for eye gouge in RWC, go figure huh? Horribly inconsistent, maybe the head IRB geezer should be the judge of all incidents, do it by twitter.

McCaw didnt get cited for a deliberatly kneeing Parra in the head in that match either. Those incidents canceled eachother out.

Yeah, but you don't get a ban for kneeing a player in the head these days (Cooper on McCaw).

ebop wrote:Yeah, but you don't get a ban for kneeing a player in the head these days (Cooper on McCaw).

Heaslip got a red card and a ban for kneeing McCaw in the head.

Cooper got off because he is actually a Kiwi and obviously denied it.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Why should an AB admit committing foul play when theyve done nothing wrong?...In fact it would be dishonest, maybe even misleading the court.

balderdash - he put his foot on an oppoants head. Worth a red card, hence a short ban is right.

TJ wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Why should an AB admit committing foul play when theyve done nothing wrong?...In fact it would be dishonest, maybe even misleading the court.

balderdash - he put his foot on an oppoants head. Worth a red card, hence a short ban is right.

A foot on an opponent's head is not foul play.

aucklandlaurie is correct why should an AB admit committing foul play? They do no wrong.

New Zealand -

Boks -

Everyone else -

I think the faux outrage expressed by a few on here is more to do with the fact that they were hoping the Citing Commissioner would be reducing the number of AB available to play against England in a few weeks time, rather than any perceived leniency.

No Jimpy. As usual you are wrong.

beshocked wrote:No Jimpy. As usual you are wrong.

Really?

And you have the repeated temerity to accuse me of unstructured or irrelevant replies to posts...

Im not English for a start so dont care about the NZ v England match.

GunsGerms wrote:Im not English for a start so dont care about the NZ v England match.

Its a cap fitting exercise, the faux outraged know exactly who they are. Just look for the sweeping generalisations and metaphoric stamping of feet.

Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Why not just segregate us from the rest of society in camps until you can come up with a solution....

Look, 1 week is a joke and he should IMO have been given more. However it's not the same as the dumped tackle in the French game that had potential to cause real injury. Yes, the IRB is inconsistent and they need to sort it out. Is a review of one match going to work? No. It's meaningless and sets a disturbing precedent. It's the system that's faulty and it affects everyone. Here's an example of a non citing not involving an AB to illustrate it: http://wn.com/dylan_hartley%27s_forearm_drop_on_richie_mccaw

Anyway I''m off to plan the training of the kids in the dark arts of offside in the rusk, assault and battery of the opposition, and control of the match official and the IRB.

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Of course, what did you expect. The forum is predominantly european, the home unions band together against the "threat from the south", so it is only natural, if it was an Aussie or Saffer, the same would apply.

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Of course, what did you expect. The forum is predominantly european, the home unions band together against the "threat from the south", so it is only natural, if it was an Aussie or Saffer, the same would apply.

Don't tar me with that brush!

Jimpy wrote:

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Of course, what did you expect. The forum is predominantly european, the home unions band together against the "threat from the south", so it is only natural, if it was an Aussie or Saffer, the same would apply.

Don't tar me with that brush!

EDIT: some not all.

blackcanelion nice to see you agree it's a joke.

It is a consistency issue.

Yes you can mention previous things but this is the current issue.

There will always be a bit of bitterness because of that spear tackle on BOD that no one has apologised for.

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Why not just segregate us from the rest of society in camps until you can come up with a solution....

Look, 1 week is a joke and he should IMO have been given more. However it's not the same as the dumped tackle in the French game that had potential to cause real injury. Yes, the IRB is inconsistent and they need to sort it out. Is a review of one match going to work? No. It's meaningless and sets a disturbing precedent. It's the system that's faulty and it affects everyone. Here's an example of a non citing not involving an AB to illustrate it: http://wn.com/dylan_hartley%27s_forearm_drop_on_richie_mccaw

Anyway I''m off to plan the training of the kids in the dark arts of offside in the rusk, assault and battery of the opposition, and control of the match official and the IRB.

Bleedin eck BCL i mnow you start em young, but sheesh, have they got any teeth yet???

beshocked wrote:blackcanelion nice to see you agree it's a joke.

It is a consistency issue.

Yes you can mention previous things but this is the current issue.

There will always be a bit of bitterness because of that spear tackle on BOD that no one has apologised for.

Love means - Never having to say you are sorry.

Jimpy wrote:

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Of course, what did you expect. The forum is predominantly european, the home unions band together against the "threat from the south", so it is only natural, if it was an Aussie or Saffer, the same would apply.

Don't tar me with that brush!

I'd really like to see the judgement - personally I think 2 weeks would have been fair, given the punch delivered as well. There's been plenty of "odd" judiciary decisions in the past that warranted investigation - for example the Mark Cueto one where a 12 week ban was mitigated down to 6 weeks (granted, the reasons for mitigation were valid) - and then (the bit I did have a problem with) he was allowed to serve most of the ban in the off season!

Every team can point at citing/judiciary decisions that did/didn't go their way, it's becoming pretty clear that the system itself still needs work.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Of course, what did you expect. The forum is predominantly european, the home unions band together against the "threat from the south", so it is only natural, if it was an Aussie or Saffer, the same would apply.

Don't tar me with that brush!

I'd really like to see the judgement - personally I think 2 weeks would have been fair, given the punch delivered as well. There's been plenty of "odd" judiciary decisions in the past that warranted investigation - for example the Mark Cueto one where a 12 week ban was mitigated down to 6 weeks (granted, the reasons for mitigation were valid) - and then (the bit I did have a problem with) he was allowed to serve most of the ban in the off season!

Every team can point at citing/judiciary decisions that did/didn't go their way, it's becoming pretty clear that the system itself still needs work.

But obviousy, the AB get away with it. All the time.

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Of course, what did you expect. The forum is predominantly european, the home unions band together against the "threat from the south", so it is only natural, if it was an Aussie or Saffer, the same would apply.

Nonsense - just have a reread. some really bitter and nonsensical posts from an NZ fan or two - many of us myself included taking a more moderate view. I even expressed the view that some NH folk got off lightly - Hartley for the foream on McCaw for example.

Its clear that greater consistency is needed - but boy its better than it used to be

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Amazing. Instead of being a discussion on consistency of the IRB this discussion is descending into a kiwi bashing blog with all the old prejudices at full flow.

Of course, what did you expect. The forum is predominantly european, the home unions band together against the "threat from the south", so it is only natural, if it was an Aussie or Saffer, the same would apply.

Nonsense - just have a reread. some realy bitter and nonsensical posts from an NZ fan or two - many of us myself included taking a more moderate view.

Its clear that greter consistency is needed - but boy its better than it used to be

I am being facetious TJ.

woooossshhhhhhhh - what was that just flew over my head?

Don't know, but one also flew over the cuckoo's nest.

Can we change the title of this thread please to correct a couple of factual errors:

Adam Thomson's One Week Ban

thanks

The sad thing is the issue with consistency isn't new. Here's a link from the 2009 Autumn tour showing three tackles and the punishments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugDM1iHuVWw

Carters wasn't even the worst high tackle in the game. This one from the following year wasn't even cited eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuSnrsNoWpU

check this one red for stamping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNv_33Q1eco&feature=related

Its a damn sight better than a few years ago for consistency and appropriate punishments. I really don't think Thomson has anything to complain about - a week is lenient but not absurdly so. 6 weeks would have been harsh unless he had previous.

I agree Thomson didn't stamp and it didn't look malicious. Strokosch is a genuinely hard guy (black belt in karate), so probably feels embarrassed at such a fuss over a tap with a boot to the head. He wants to downplay the whole thing, and good luck to him for that.

Why did Thomson do it? Why does any player do something daft in front of the officials and the cameras? Presumably he was making a point, though it's hard to know what.

Now the disciplinary committee has made its own point by banning Thomson for a week. That should be the end of it.

Jimpy wrote:I think the faux outrage expressed by a few on here is more to do with the fact that they were hoping the Citing Commissioner would be reducing the number of AB available to play against England in a few weeks time, rather than any perceived leniency.

yeah we get it, NZ never do anything wrong. Everyone hates them and try's to do what they can to disadvantage them...

If it wasnt a stamp, what was it? Was Thompson using Strokosch's head as a step? Was it a gentle tap with the boot to head, excuse me please out of the way? Why did Thompson raise his foot and put it on Strokosch's head?

If you have ever played rugby you would know how hard it is not to lash out at something who is lying on the ball. Why is is so difficult to admit that thats what happened and move on.

It is what happened, he is lucky to have his ban reduced to one week for foul play, especially as it was preceded by a punch, and in my mind the IRB is entitled to step in and look for consistency among rulings for foul play. There needs to be clearer guidelines for commissioners to work with.

For instance, it doesn't wash with me that there is a reduction in the sentence if a player has a clean record. There should be a minimum stand-down period for each case - stamping, forearms, elbows, gouging, raking, punching etc - and a player's good record shouldn't impact on that sentence. So in my mind most people thought a minimum of two weeks is appropriate for such a reckless action. Then you add MORE to the sentence IF the offender has a record of such behaviour. So if you appear regularly before the committee for foul play, let's say Thomson had done that sort of thing before. First he gets two weeks because he was an egg and though it wasn't repeated stamping or with great force, it was preceded by a punch and the head is a no-go area. So give him two weeks. But he has a bad record and did a similar thing before. Let's double the penalty and give him a month and this applies to 4 TEST MATCHES.

I think we all want to see consistency and not have players get off scot free (excuse the pun) for things that shouldn't happen on the rugby field.

Ah, but it wasn't "preceeded by a punch". He was "reaching forcibly to retrieve the ball".

"IRB Chief Sticks Boot Into All Black's"

Into All Black's what? Inability to admit guilt. Into their moral deficiencies.

If he did stick the boot in it'll only result in a weeks holiday anyway

GunsGerms wrote:
"IRB Chief Sticks Boot Into All Black's"

Into All Black's what? Inability to admit guilt. Into their moral deficiencies.

Find me one other case where the IRB chief instigated a review of a disciplinary hearing outcome personally and I'll retract it...

AWOP,
simple mate, world conspiracy isn't it ?
That guy was bribed to lay there and nut the nearest AB boot.

GunsGerms wrote:If it wasnt a stamp, what was it? Was Thompson using Strokosch's head as a step? Was it a gentle tap with the boot to head, excuse me please out of the way? Why did Thompson raise his foot and put it on Strokosch's head?

If you have ever played rugby you would know how hard it is not to lash out at something who is lying on the ball. Why is is so difficult to admit that thats what happened and move on.

Why did Thompson do it?

Desperate attempt to get himself noticed, deep in the shadows of McCaw, Read, Messam etc?

GunsGerms wrote:If it wasnt a stamp, what was it? Was Thompson using Strokosch's head as a step? Was it a gentle tap with the boot to head, excuse me please out of the way? Why did Thompson raise his foot and put it on Strokosch's head?

If you have ever played rugby you would know how hard it is not to lash out at something who is lying on the ball. Why is is so difficult to admit that thats what happened and move on.

Why did Thompson do it?

Desperate attempt to get himself noticed, deep in the shadows of McCaw, Read, Messam etc?

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
"IRB Chief Sticks Boot Into All Black's"

Into All Black's what? Inability to admit guilt. Into their moral deficiencies.

Find me one other case where the IRB chief instigated a review of a disciplinary hearing outcome personally and I'll retract it...

Ok Ill find you an example of the IRB chief reviewing a disciplinary hearing outcome if you can give me an example of any AB ever admitting foul play at a citing hearing.

Ok, I've had my fill of this - apologies to the mods and admins who do an excellent job of keeping this site running smoothly, but AWOP, your comments are simply sickening - I really wish you'd pack your bags off to another site and share your 'wisdom' (sic) with them. You lad, are simply a disgrace

Mods, feel free to take whatever action you feel is appropriate - I've followed Biltong's heuristic that you should only ever post what you would say face2face in a pub - believe me, I'd have said a whole lot worse to this fool of a poster - sorry

I blame the New Zealand media. You only have to read articles such as the already mentioned NZ Herald recent offering to understand why opinions such as AWOPs exist.

[url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10847228. [/url]