Bitter IRB chief declares war on All Blacks

by anotherworldofpain Sun 11 Nov 2012, 6:23 pm

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.

by **Biltong** Thu 22 Nov 2012, 7:37 am

HammerofThunor wrote: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.

IE: He got 1 week, Etzebeth will get two weeks (even if he doesn't make contact, he only needs to aim), Bakkies will get three weeks. Whistle

by anotherworldofpain Thu 22 Nov 2012, 8:09 am

Linebreaker wrote:Take it easy AWOP.

To clarify, that's not my opinion I just heard some people were saying that and I wondered what the opinion on v2 was abOut that point of view.

by **Pal Joey** Thu 22 Nov 2012, 8:19 am

No need to clarify anything. I can read.

by Guest Thu 22 Nov 2012, 8:21 am

8 weeks for Simmons, how about reviewing that mister IRB?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 22 Nov 2012, 8:34 am

Simmons is appealing, as he should.

by blackcanelion Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:17 am

My guess is they'll extend Thomson's ban to 2 weeks and reduce Simmon's ban to 3 weeks. Claim they've been more consistent and nothing will actually have changed (Thomson will still have sat out two tests) and Simmons will still miss the rest autumn tour games and no games next year.

by GunsGerms Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:25 am

Thompson should get at least two weeks for the stamp. Anything less is doesnt exactly send out a great message re stamping.

In all fairness Tamati Ellison is a very lucky boy for not getting a ban himself for his armbar on Ryan Grant.

by boomeranga Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:28 am

GunsGerms wrote:
In all fairness Tamati Ellison is a very lucky boy for not getting a ban himself for his armbar on Ryan Grant.

Very lucky. That was dodgy.

by **Pal Joey** Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:39 am

Armbar sounds so much better than stiff arm. Very Happy

by Guest Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:44 am

Just watched it, what the heck was he doing? That was a dodgy arm bendy wrestling move, not cool at all. Looked like tamati reacted to something, but there was nothing to react to, they were just holding hands.

by goneagain Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:52 am

GunsGerms wrote:
In all fairness Tamati Ellison is a very lucky boy for not getting a ban himself for his armbar on Ryan Grant.

Nonsense. if Grant hadn't tried to break Ellisons thumb/wrist in the first place there would be no 'incident'.

by blackcanelion Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:54 am

I'm guessing that was why it wasn't referred.

by Guest Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:57 am

Ah, so he did react to something. I tried pausing and doing the slow mo thing but it happened so quick, couldn't tell. All it looked like was that they were holding hands, but if grant was twisting his wrist, gotta do something.

by goneagain Thu 22 Nov 2012, 10:58 am

Have aread of this thread. https://www.606v2.com/t37202-did-new-zealand-number-12-deliberately-try-to-break-ryan-grants-arm

I spelled it out quite clearly.

by GunsGerms Thu 22 Nov 2012, 11:10 am

goneagain wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
In all fairness Tamati Ellison is a very lucky boy for not getting a ban himself for his armbar on Ryan Grant.

Nonsense. if Grant hadn't tried to break Ellisons thumb/wrist in the first place there would be no 'incident'.

Two wrongs dont make a right. How do you know anyway that Grant tried to break Ellisons thumb/wrist? Is there any evidence of this?

by goneagain Thu 22 Nov 2012, 11:14 am

Same place as the 'evidence' of Ellison trying to break Grant's arm.

by GunsGerms Thu 22 Nov 2012, 11:34 am

Cant see grant do much wrong in any video I have seen whereas Ellison's actions look pretty bad.

by PJHolybloke Fri 23 Nov 2012, 12:18 am

Yawn.

I can't decide whether this thread speaks more for the daily torpor of the IRB, or more about the ability for certain "sections" of our species to find ever more elaborate ways to manifest their own weaknesses in the "actions" of others... chin

On the other hand, Bar Rafaeli is fit. mo2

by Hound_of_Harrow Fri 23 Nov 2012, 1:06 am

Riskysports wrote: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

I have skim read this thread, and went back to this post.

Tops!

by anotherworldofpain Fri 23 Nov 2012, 11:56 am

Are you guys still talking about this? Jeez, move on.

by **Biltong** Fri 23 Nov 2012, 12:02 pm

SLOW DAY.

by anotherworldofpain Fri 23 Nov 2012, 9:25 pm

So in an unprecedented move, the IRB chief has personally extended the ban on Thompson.

Excuse my language when i say: what a Frak farce.

by Cyril Fri 23 Nov 2012, 9:30 pm

Sounds like they're being thorough. Good to see. If something hasn't been properly punished then there are steps that can be taken.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 23 Nov 2012, 9:32 pm

anotherworldofpain wrote:So in an unprecedented move, the IRB chief has personally extended the ban on Thompson.

Excuse my language when i say: what a Frak farce.

Thoroughly deserved - grow up, GG

by gregortree Fri 23 Nov 2012, 9:38 pm

anotherworldofpain wrote:Are you guys still talking about this? Jeez, move on.

by Hood83 Fri 23 Nov 2012, 9:47 pm

anotherworldofpain wrote:So in an unprecedented move, the IRB chief has personally extended the ban on Thompson.

Excuse my language when i say: what a Frak farce.

On the one hand, i genuinely thought nothing of the 'stamp', thought a week was fine and hate the precedent this sets. It's ridiculous.

On the other hand, it has you frothing at the mouth again. Soooo... Very Happy

Oh sorry, that's 'ad hominem' isn't it?

Incidentally I think i'm the only person who doesn't buy all your faux outrage malarkey AWOP. You're just pulling our leg aren't you?

Also, the first hand was the correct hand. I don't see how this is a good thing.

by Guest Fri 23 Nov 2012, 9:59 pm

Sweet, this means mister IRB will review the rougerie gouge last year, doesn't it? I'm sure Cleary and Jones want to see fair bans dished out to those that deserve it so look foward to reading their tweets on the matter as to how scum like that don't even get cited!
Tumbleweed

ps. Thomson deserved more so no problem with any increase in ban.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 23 Nov 2012, 10:08 pm

ebop wrote:Sweet, this means mister IRB will review the rougerie gouge last year, doesn't it? I'm sure Cleary and Jones want to see fair bans dished out to those that deserve it so look foward to reading their tweets on the matter as to how scum like that don't even get cited!

ps. Thomson deserved more so no problem with any increase in ban.

I hope so, on the Rougerie incident, ebop, but I fear not. Can you guys pls start referring Poopie to the citing h-officer?

Unfortunately, on this site, your comrade Grey Ghost (banned twice, back for a third innings) will hype it up (quite possibly to get the reaction I've given altho I don't think he's that clever) and it gets lot in his nonsense

by anotherworldofpain Fri 23 Nov 2012, 11:09 pm

It's either incompetent bungling or a direct assault in the ABs not seen since the IRB covered up the political 1995 poisoning, warranted Wayne barnes in 07 and conspired to strip hosting rights in 2003.

Make no mistake, the all blacks tour to the NH is normally riddled with Machiavellian back room controversy sponsored no doubt by those with something to gain (RFu? Wru?), it will only serve to motivate the ABs further.

Expect to see them lay down a marker tomorrow.

by GunsGerms Fri 23 Nov 2012, 11:13 pm

It's the world v the ABs once again.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Sat 24 Nov 2012, 6:33 am

anotherworldofpain wrote:It's either incompetent bungling or a direct assault in the ABs not seen since the IRB covered up the political 1995 poisoning, warranted Wayne barnes in 07 and conspired to strip hosting rights in 2003.

Make no mistake, the all blacks tour to the NH is normally riddled with Machiavellian back room controversy sponsored no doubt by those with something to gain (RFu? Wru?), it will only serve to motivate the ABs further.

Expect to see them lay down a marker tomorrow.

Beyond pathetic

by aucklandlaurie Sat 24 Nov 2012, 6:45 am

The whinging members of the English media (and Stephen Jones) must be wondering "how the f..k did that happen ?" with thompson now able to play against England next week.

by **Biltong** Sat 24 Nov 2012, 6:54 am

anotherworldofpain wrote:It's either incompetent bungling or a direct assault in the ABs not seen since the IRB covered up the political 1995 poisoning.

AWOP, that kind of accusation can get you in a lot of trouble mate.

by emack2 Sat 24 Nov 2012, 7:24 am

Don`t care about the ban it was careless,NOT malicious.Don`t care about a iot of nonsense i`ve read about conspiracy theories etc.I DO care the IRB has intervened in only one case.IF they are going to do so a Standard tariff for each offence needs to be put in place.So there is consistency in the rulings World wide.Incidenti Cool

lly the IRB are reviewing" the Deans Try"next week.Leading Psychics are taking evidence via Ouija Boards.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 24 Nov 2012, 7:38 am

Alan if the IRB genuinely felt that penalties being handed down by the judiciary were "unduely lenient", then all they had to do was to set minimum terms of suspension.

By not adopting that course (and only appealing one instance involving an All Black) they have just shown how far they are prepared to pander to and accomodate the English media, but worse still they lost the appeal, which just goes to show how ignorant or out of touch the English rugby media are.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 24 Nov 2012, 7:52 am

aucklandlaurie wrote: Alan if the IRB genuinely felt that penalties being handed down by the judiciary were "unduely lenient", then all they had to do was to set minimum terms of suspension.

By not adopting that course (and only appealing one instance involving an All Black) they have just shown how far they are prepared to pander to and accomodate the English media, but worse still they lost the appeal, which just goes to show how ignorant or out of touch the English rugby media are.

They essentially do. They have guidelines and ranges for various levels. They feel those are not being used correctly, and that this incident warranted a higher level than the minimum.

Maybe the appeal process is just pandering to the New Zealand Herald and the tin foil hat brigade?

Anyway its Jon Oneill whos in charge of that section of the IRB so blame the Aussies jealousy of your gold medal tally not ours

by aucklandlaurie Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:02 am

What gold medal tally?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:09 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What gold medal tally?

http://tvnz.co.nz/olympics-2012/aussies-still-smarting-over-medal-count-5009029

by aucklandlaurie Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:28 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
What gold medal tally?

http://tvnz.co.nz/olympics-2012/aussies-still-smarting-over-medal-count-5009029

I had never considered the possibility that the IRB appealed against the sentence handed down to Adam Thompson was because New Zealand at one stage of the Olympics was leading Australia on the medal table.

But heres hoping the Aussies get a good result on their Simmons appeal.

by **LondonTiger** Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:30 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:

The whinging members of the English media (and Stephen Jones) must be wondering "how the f..k did that happen ?" with thompson now able to play against England next week.

There has only been one group whinging so far - and they like the colour black. Sad really.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:37 am

England have to learn that you play rugby on a rugby field, not in a newspaper column or on twitter.

by **LondonTiger** Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:44 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
England have to learn that you play rugby on a rugby field, ~~not in a newspaper column or on twitter.~~

Agree with the first part. Second makes you look stupid. There has been no campaign by ENGLISH media. This has all been caused by Aussies and Stephen Jones.

If you believe what you post, I offer you my fullest sympathy.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:49 am

Considering their record with the press in New Zealand paying people to make up stories about them that may not be a bad idea Laurie

by **Pal Joey** Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:55 am

Still smarting from getting belted to pieces last week Peter?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:57 am

Linebreaker wrote:Still smarting from getting belted to pieces last week Peter?

Now now dont be a jerk.

Not at all, just using it as an example of how stupid the conspiracy theories are.

by **Pal Joey** Sat 24 Nov 2012, 8:59 am

touchy, touchy.

Cheer up fella... you have a good chance to make amends later on today.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 24 Nov 2012, 9:03 am

What by getting a few Saffers cited then whipping up a media lynch mob? Whistle

by aucklandlaurie Sat 24 Nov 2012, 9:04 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Considering their record with the press in New Zealand paying people to make up stories about them that may not be a bad idea Laurie

And talking of such matters isnt Lord Leveson going to tell us next week how great the English media are?

by Guest Sat 24 Nov 2012, 9:10 am

In a reply to journalists Mick Cleary and Brian Moore, he promised to review the Thomson penalty and has opened himself up to accusations he was bullied into it following a conversation with the former, a writer for the Telegraph.

In reply to Cleary's tweet about the Thomson ban, 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."

Cleary replied: "Respect your need to adhere to procedure. Can sense your awareness of mood among fans." To which Gosper said: "Thank you for your understanding which is correct on both counts."

Mood of 'British' fans. Don't recall any IRB outcry over the treatment McCaw's been subjected to. This is the point us AB fans are making, it's only when the influential British media whisper in the IRB boss man's ear that 'reviews' get done. Actually, I'm a little fearful this could be the thin end of the wedge, what else will the new boss man promise in pandering to insignificants. Cleary, Moore, Jones, who the f$&k are they are how dear they get to influence IRB decisions.

by **LondonTiger** Sat 24 Nov 2012, 9:12 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Considering their record with the press in New Zealand paying people to make up stories about them that may not be a bad idea Laurie

And talking of such matters isnt Lord Leveson going to tell us next week how great the ~~English~~ media are?

BRITISH media you silly, silly boy.

by Sponsored content