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.

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

All Blacks Sitiveni Sivivatu was suspended for a week following the 32-19 Bledisloe Cup rugby victory over the Wallabies in Tokyo. Sivivatu was cited for a dangerous tackle on Adam Ashley-Cooper in the 34th minute. Judicial Officer Peter Hobbs said Sivivatu accepted the tackle had been dangerous

Your turn.

You can accept a tackle is dangerous without actually admitting intent so thats not a great example though surprisingly it is unusually honest for an AB so I salute your research skills/memory.

AsLong As
but also pl recognise AWOP is a WUM fool, so try not to let him rile you with this 'infamy' nonsense. Don't get yourself modded like that other NZ fool Harrison.

Ad Hominem.

GunsGerms wrote:You can accept a tackle is dangerous without actually admitting intent so thats not a great example though surprisingly it is unusually honest for an AB so I salute your research skills/memory.

You asked for an example of an All Black "admitting foul play" you didn't ask for an example "admitting intent". I found you one. I'm waiting for your side of the deal...

gregortree wrote:AsLong As
but also pl recognise AWOP is a WUM fool, so try not to let him rile you with this 'infamy' nonsense. Don't get yourself modded like that other NZ fool Harrison.

At least he doesn't constantly bang on about Wayne Barnes or the 'non English' members of England's team like Grey Ghost used to do... oh wait a minute...

The deal is off.

GunsGerms wrote:The deal is off.

Why?

Didn't the IRB review the cases of Schalk Burger and Parrise a few years ago following a perceived soft ban? Could well be making this up as my memory fades!

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The deal is off.

Why?

I wasnt entirely satisfied by your response.

I think any objective poster might see this for what it is, so I don't feel the need to take it further then thanks GG.

What about this one then:

Tana Umaga admits hitting Chris Masoe with handbag with intent to humiliate him in 2006.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10384002

A lot of knickers twisting over nothing. The IRB bloke made a generic non committal quip on twitter in response to some other twits who expressed surprise at the length of the ban. Brian Moore and that Samoan guy who slagged off Toby Flood among them.

Gosper wrote: “The IRB will review this case as it is a match under our jurisdiction. If we decide to take action we will make it public.”

I can't find any evidence to suggest that they have the power to intervene in the ruling. Most media coverage take the view that this means they will review the procedure which lead to the ban rather than the ban itself. However the IRB did make the same noises when the Rougerie/McCaw peeper poking footage came out and said they were going to look at extending the length of time allowed for a citing from the current 36 hours. I haven’t heard anything since on that one.
I would wait to see if they make any further comment before twisting the underpants any further. Must be terribly uncomfortable as it is.

AWOP, why do you care what ban Thomson gets anyway? You are not a kiwi or an All-Black supporter, are you?

of course he is. all he does is moan how NZ get a raw deal. Especially his massive man crush Richie Mc HottiehotCaw

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:of course he is. all he does is moan how NZ get a raw deal. Especially his massive man crush Richie Mc HottiehotCaw

Really? I hadn't noticed

There are some recurring paranoid delusions about NZ victimisation.
" Infamy, Infamy ! they've all got it in for me "

AWOP has admitted being a kiwi in previous threads, accidentally of course. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of which part of NZ he is from, which part speaks eastern european broken ENglish?

gregortree wrote:AsLong As
but also pl recognise AWOP is a WUM fool,

Is it really true that fish have a 5 second memory?

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

All Blacks Sitiveni Sivivatu was suspended for a week following the 32-19 Bledisloe Cup rugby victory over the Wallabies in Tokyo. Sivivatu was cited for a dangerous tackle on Adam Ashley-Cooper in the 34th minute. Judicial Officer Peter Hobbs said Sivivatu accepted the tackle had been dangerous

Your turn.

I thought he was a Fijian not a Kiwi?

So you after the WC final you wanted the IRB to sort themselves out over the Richie McCaw gouging incident and look at the whole citing limits and how things can be reviewed.

So the IRB do just that and as an AB is on the receving end of its out of line and not fair???

And i belive they have reviewed cases before as mentioned with Burger and Parisse.

Just stop beating the same drum up a blind alley and you may find some posters agree with you more.

Hate to see you banned again ghost of the grey kind

thebluesmancometh wrote:AWOP has admitted being a kiwi in previous threads, accidentally of course. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of which part of NZ he is from, which part speaks eastern european broken ENglish?

Te Moana-a-Toi. or B.O.P.

He's a real Steamer.

ChequeredJersey wrote:AWOP, why do you care what ban Thomson gets anyway? You are not a kiwi or an All-Black supporter, are you?

I care passionately about objectivity and fairness. The problem that a lot of posters here have is they are too subjective. They see a foul by an All Black and want a life ban but can happily justify Hartley's elbow drop for example.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:AWOP, why do you care what ban Thomson gets anyway? You are not a kiwi or an All-Black supporter, are you?

I care passionately about objectivity and fairness. The problem that a lot of posters here have is they are too subjective. They see a foul by an All Black and want a life ban but can happily justify Hartley's elbow drop for example.

i think you are the one who is too subjective. it is only when a NZ player is up to be cited for flithy below the belt play or when a NZ player (mostly your man crush McCaw) is on the recieving end of dirthy play that we hear you talking about such issues.

AB =

The irony is that this thread is about an Aussie (the IRB) calling the English, Welsh, Irish, Scots, French and Italians (6 nations committee) incompetent. Online we've got Kiwis defending the poms and celts and poms and celts attacking themselves.

I wonder how much of it is just poor journalism. How many of us can actually real off the effective bans. Some food for thought:
The minimum ban for stomping is 2 weeks. Take one off for a good history you get 1. I would have been happy with more, but this argument is defensible.
The maximum ban for the tip tackle was 14 weeks, reduced to 8 due to history. The effective ban is 3 weeks as the Australian year finishes in the 1st week of December. I think Simmons was probably a tad unlucky, although it was late and I don't recall him pulling out. I'd have thought less but again the argument is defensible and is somewhat academic given there are only 3 games left (given the assessment of the tackle).

I'd be happier with an IRB appointed disciplinary committee that heard all cases. Surely in the day of skype and the internet there's no need for players and officials to be physically present.

ABs = , so beyond reproach.

anotherworldofpain

No one is suggesting a life ban for your beloved and do no wrong ABs.... what they are suggesting is that the ABs get preferential treatment, which by all accounts is strongly supported by most people.

Should Thompson have got more than 1 week. Of Course he should have, the funny thing is he probably wouldn't have played against Italy anyhow so it has no impact whatsoever... it would be like handing out a 1 week ban in the last match before the summer break in Dec... pointless.

You go on about Hartley like it was a vicious assult.... well that was in the past just like we from the NH could bring out BOD in the first Lions test in 05.

Nearly all AB supporters say the NH whinge over that... well Mealamu and Umaga didn't even get a card, not even a citing and unlike Strokosch he didn't come out of the tackle uninjured.

6 months later after the IRB decided to review new footage they announced that the tackle should have resulted in red cards for both and 6 month bans.... but couldn't back track as the time period for citing was out. That is something we all could have seen... but the IRB didn't have the balls to cite them and have them banned.

Nevertheless... we've learnt to accept this and move on.. you got to get a grip over a elbow to McCaws face which hardly even drew blood.

Man up dude... this is rugby, its a man's sport. McCaw and all 7's who get on the wrong side of rucks expect this sort of treatment and get it every game.

Dear other posters, let's drop the emotive language? It's not about "beloveds" and "man crushes" is about debating the facts on their own merit. As soon as you descend into that kind of heavily laced pejorative language you reveal your bias and discredit your argument.

The issue here is that Thomson has recieved a consistent ban. Now some people trying to argue the case that the ban was too lenient. Perhaps it was, perhaps not, that is irrelevant to the case I am making here though, which is why do the IRB choose now to intervene?

The IRB have always been inconsistent. As for why they are planning to review this decision, I presume they decided that there has been enough general over-leniency (to all sorts of players, ranging from Bradley "what a moron" Davies to Dylan Hartley whose "nibble", whilst provoked, should probably have been punished properly) in the last few years that goes against their current "cracking down on dangerous/foul play" approach and they want to make an example to show they are not going to be lenient. It will, in the end, be an empty gesture and there is an argument that in most cases the leniency was justifiable anyway and I doubt anything will change. ABs are the most high profile rugby team being the Champions of the World and the #1 ranked team so it makes sense that it is an AB player that gets this decision pushed on them

Will it really be reviewed though? Wasn't it just a twitter rant by the IRB chief and apparently the tweet had been removed now anyway. If anything, if all this comes to nothing, the IRB chief should probably learn to show a little more discretion rather than trying to be mr popular on twitter.

Yeah, I think he might have messed up in a naive way on that one...

yeah I mean who would be stupid enough to air their outrageous views on the internet without bothering to fact check first ...AWOP?

anotherworldofpain wrote:Dear other posters, let's drop the emotive language? It's not about "beloveds" and "man crushes" is about debating the facts on their own merit. As soon as you descend into that kind of heavily laced pejorative language you reveal your bias and discredit your argument.

The issue here is that Thomson has recieved a consistent ban. Now some people trying to argue the case that the ban was too lenient. Perhaps it was, perhaps not, that is irrelevant to the case I am making here though, which is why do the IRB choose now to intervene?

Can you say 'hypocrite'.

For goodness sake, let's keep on topic and stop with the personal insults here.

For goodness sake, who's really interested in this topic anyway?
Why would it be so important wether the IRB chose to intervene? will it change the face of the rugby world if the ban is reviewed?
looks like it is controversy some posters (including but not limited to the OP) are more interested in.

I honestly think AWOP is on a money spinner on this forum. Goes something like this:
AWOP: Bet I can lure a shed load of Brits and Oirish guys into a meaningless meandering debate about nothing for days on end
AWOPS mates: No way dude, they’re a savvy bunch. Especially those brainy, devilishly handsome Oirish blokes. They won’t be taken in by your Tom foolery.
AWOP: Bet I can get over 100 responses
AWOPS mates: No way dude. We’ll each give you a shiny dollar for every response you can get over 100.
AWOP: (Villainous laugh and moustache twirling)

Maybe he thinks 606v2 is like youtube and you get advertisers approaching you depending on the number of hits. I'm not going to die wondering.

I'm off to start the thread why I think criticism of Richie McCaw is merely a manifestation of people's misgivings about their own team as well as their childhood.

English and Welsh rivalry pales into insignificance compared to New Zealand and Australia. Discuss

Submachine wrote:English and Welsh rivalry pales into insignificance compared to New Zealand and Australia. Discuss

First Kerry Packer made our cricketers play in beige. Then this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkQRERykq5M

Submachine wrote:English and Welsh rivalry pales into insignificance compared to New Zealand and Australia. Discuss

I didnt realise either country was big on throwing sports

Strokes - unfit to play this weekend but he does not blame Thomson.

" I hope Thomson's boot is ok after I nutted it, on Remembrance Sunday too. I am so sorry. And I got him banned for a week, mea culpa, that was a bit harsh on poor old Thommo and his fans "

Strokes is not quoted as saying.

Sorry this is a very strange post, as so far I see no sign of said IRB boot being stuck anywhere.

a punch and a foot onto a head (deliberate) would normally be more than 1 week ban.

Some of the points made are correct. The length of ban may have been influenced by:
There was no real force down as he seem to place it there rather than drive down. The kind words from Strockosh and the lack of prior form

I think a two week would be been about right, but I suppose a one week is ok for silly behaviour.

Not sure how getting a miminum ban (deserved) means the world is against the All Blacks though

Ah well - roll on the games this week where I can put a cast iron seal of certainty there will be

Bad referee decisions
One sided viewings on incidences
Dropped balls
An All Black on the wrong side
A non all black on the Wrong side
A scrum that no-one quite knows why it went down, but it was obviously the other front row
An argument who will be in the lions
An argument who is the best selections for your team
NDL having a brain fart


It what makes the game fun


An I will point out - there are no conspiries there. Even team gets some decisions for them, some against - we tend to only notice the ones against us.

The best teams sometimes get the rub of the green, but that is just human nature, and it is up to the rest to become the best team so they can get the rub of the green

Finally while the IRB are poor in many ways, you should always remember how lucky we are it is not FIFA

It's probably also worth pointing out that the Thompson suspension is consistent with the rulings on Higgenbottom and Grayling. Both of whom effectively received a 1 match suspension for each citing. Greyling was given a two week suspension but was only unavailable for the Wallabies game, Higgenbottom was given a 4 week suspension for 2 offences (2 weeks each) but would only have missed the games agaiost England and France. I think from memory the committee made it clear the 4 week ban was to ensure 2 matches were misswed..

For those of you who aren't aware the IRB have decided to appeal the an Thompson.

Whilst I think the ban should have bee more I obviously think it's consistent with the recent rules, when actual games that are missed are looked at.

Politics.........

Seems like at lest1 journalist is doing a few basic checks.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10849214

When you said IRB are appealing I thought it was a joke based on the idea the IRB protect the All Blacks. He's was given the lowest ban possible for the offense. It was probably the lowest offence that was bannable.

One week plenty, 2 weeks if he wasn't a 'clean' player and 3 weeks if he was dirty Bar Steward and was doing similar every game.

Hammer. It's effectively exactly the same as the previously two bans given out this year for the same offence (contact with the head of an opposition player). The same as Higgenbottom and the same as Greyling. I.e. one match. I think match ban numbers are misleading in that they don't relate to actual games that will be missed.

Match bans is a very difficult one to do. Various countries have rest periods. All the have to do is use the banned period as the rest period. Is that a 'ban'? It's not easy. But something certainly needs doing. I thought I read somewhere that the length of bans took into account off periods but I've never seen that written in any discipline reports regarding length of ban.

I agree. They probably do. I think they are a bit short. Having said the media is comparing the length of the bans, rather than the number of games missed. Which I think is the point in this case. I'd welcome a regular, open review of the citing and suspension process. I think the current review is a farcical.

Take it easy AWOP.