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.

Where the hell is London?..I thought it was in England.

Wow. For a team that plays well and wins, it is amazing how bad winners some fans can be.

If you want to go all x files on us - maybe open the file on the World Cup final and see how NZ are not being unfairly treated at every opportunity. France could certainly have a case to complain.

ebop wrote:

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.

I think the point most of us are making is that thats a load of bullocks. If the IRB reacted to everything the British media said then Wilko wouldve won the last 3 world cups, Sam Warburton wouldve been knighted for the way he saved that French block from falling on his head, and scarf wearing would be mandatory at all public appearances.

Its just embaressing to link what wasnt even a big hooha in the press to the IRBs decision to relook at this and to somehow pretend it has come in isolation and not as the result of an ongiong tension between the IRBs guidance and the application of that by committees.

Its just as easy to cast stones at the NZ Herald and other SH media for painting a picture of NH disciplinary panels being kangaroo courts hell bent on banning their way to parity for intimidating the panel into giving a lenient suspension in the first place.

We can all make up stupid conspiracy theories and play the victim card if we want to.
Whats worrying is the number of New Zealanders who actually seem to genuinely believe this stuff. Its not quite reached the pathetic levels of some of the Samaon fans at the world cup but seriously some people do need to get a grip on relaity

Thomson gets two weeks and good behaviour doesn't mean he gets less than a minimum sentence but doesn't get more either. Seems as it should be. If more of these cases have such logic applied to them, so much the better. Two weeks is what most of us said at the start and that's what he got in the end. Now everyone in for a group hug.

sorry for being a spoon. At the end of the day the increase in ban was fair even though it was reached unconventionally.

All summer AB fans have been calling for harsher punishments on those who offend against McCaw. Perhaps this was the straw that broke the camels back and next year you will get the justice you have been screaming for.

I think what we all want is consistency. If that starts here then so much the better. I think all AB fans thought one week was too lenient. It would've been better if the judiciary process had come out with two weeks in the first place. All this appeal does is undermine the process and raise issues of inconsistency. But it's been done now and I for one don't have a problem with the decision because that's what he should've got in the first place. But let us hope that what we get in the future is consistency. If the IRB need to step in in order to achieve that then so be it. But what would be better is that the people adjudicating on these matters have clear guidelines and can distinguish what the foul play is and the minimum sentences for ALL players and then go from there based on previous conduct. Surely it can't be as hard as it appears to be.

I mentioned on the I TOLD YOU SO thread that NZ's NH tour would be controversy riddled...it always is. The ABs by their preeminent position make themselves targets for those who would "drag them back to the pack" by whatever means.

This is no longer an issue about the length of bans. This is about the All Blacks being singled out for "special" attention in a very negative fashion.

Had Thompson been served a two match ban nobody would be complaining - NZ would have replaced him on tour with another player and brought that player up to speed with the team patterns. But to bluff on one week then in an unprecedented attack on the team, randomly extend it by another match denies the team the opportunity to bring in another resource. Frankly its underhanded, it unlawful and it is a fairly blatant and brazen assault on the world champions.

This bizarre and spitful action needs to be rigorously questioned and tested by the NZRU legal team when this tour is put to bed. I would be pushing for the resignation of the new chief on the grounds of incompetence, bias and potential reputational loss and illegal financial deprecation.

LondonTiger wrote:All summer AB fans have been calling for harsher punishments on those who offend against McCaw. Perhaps this was the straw that broke the camels back and next year you will get the justice you have been screaming for.

And many have joined in a perjorative chorus of attempting to justify lenient bans by calling McCaw a "cheat who deserves it". Where are these people now? and where is the IRB chief in the fury over Higganbothams claim that "he would just do it again"? Surely if anyone needs his ban increased it's Higganbotham. Oh sorry I forgot, he's Australian, so it's ok.

The IRB have revealed themselves to be biased and unmeritorious.

Let it go AWOP. If you could channel your energies into something more constructive like keeping players away from the ruck but still finding a way to protect the ball and the halfback, then that'd be much more useful. That is your homework. I expect a full report by Monday.

anotherworldofpain wrote:
And many have joined in a perjorative chorus of attempting to justify lenient bans by calling McCaw a "cheat who deserves it".

McCaw constantly ignores the laws, deliberately - therefore he is a cheat.

I do not know what has happened to him this Summer - I have a hectic life so have to ration my sport watching to those things that really matter to me, which excludes 4Ns matches. However no-one deserves to be the victim foul play.

Those who do flop all over the ball are likely to receive more foul play though. Not justification - just fact.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I mentioned on the I TOLD YOU SO thread that NZ's NH tour would be controversy riddled...it always is. The ABs by their preeminent position make themselves targets for those who would "drag them back to the pack" by whatever means.

This is no longer an issue about the length of bans. This is about the All Blacks being singled out for "special" attention in a very negative fashion.

Had Thompson been served a two match ban nobody would be complaining - NZ would have replaced him on tour with another player and brought that player up to speed with the team patterns. But to bluff on one week then in an unprecedented attack on the team, randomly extend it by another match denies the team the opportunity to bring in another resource. Frankly its underhanded, it unlawful and it is a fairly blatant and brazen assault on the world champions.

This bizarre and spitful action needs to be rigorously questioned and tested by the NZRU legal team when this tour is put to bed. I would be pushing for the resignation of the new chief on the grounds of incompetence, bias and potential reputational loss and illegal financial deprecation.

AWOP, must say from a personal point of view, I enjoyed your posts more before you becameca one eyed NZ supporter.

Any chance you want to climb back in the closet?

So Alaisdair Strokosch should have known better than get his head over the ball on the NZ side of a ruck surely? And was lucky to get away with a warning tap?

Perhaps he should have been banned for two weeks for this incident?

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

I await the IRB appeal...

Biltong wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I mentioned on the I TOLD YOU SO thread that NZ's NH tour would be controversy riddled...it always is. The ABs by their preeminent position make themselves targets for those who would "drag them back to the pack" by whatever means.

This is no longer an issue about the length of bans. This is about the All Blacks being singled out for "special" attention in a very negative fashion.

Had Thompson been served a two match ban nobody would be complaining - NZ would have replaced him on tour with another player and brought that player up to speed with the team patterns. But to bluff on one week then in an unprecedented attack on the team, randomly extend it by another match denies the team the opportunity to bring in another resource. Frankly its underhanded, it unlawful and it is a fairly blatant and brazen assault on the world champions.

This bizarre and spitful action needs to be rigorously questioned and tested by the NZRU legal team when this tour is put to bed. I would be pushing for the resignation of the new chief on the grounds of incompetence, bias and potential reputational loss and illegal financial deprecation.

AWOP, must say from a personal point of view, I enjoyed your posts more before you becameca one eyed NZ supporter.

Any chance you want to climb back in the closet?

Hard to take from a guy who spent a year making snide comments about Bryce Lawrence in every single post to be honest Biltong!

I am like Batman, wherever I see injustice I will be there to defend the rights of the meritorious and persecuted. It's not a one-eyed NZ supporter thing, it's an honestly and integrity thing.

Were you saying that with the red pen, or not?

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Biltong wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I mentioned on the I TOLD YOU SO thread that NZ's NH tour would be controversy riddled...it always is. The ABs by their preeminent position make themselves targets for those who would "drag them back to the pack" by whatever means.

This is no longer an issue about the length of bans. This is about the All Blacks being singled out for "special" attention in a very negative fashion.

Had Thompson been served a two match ban nobody would be complaining - NZ would have replaced him on tour with another player and brought that player up to speed with the team patterns. But to bluff on one week then in an unprecedented attack on the team, randomly extend it by another match denies the team the opportunity to bring in another resource. Frankly its underhanded, it unlawful and it is a fairly blatant and brazen assault on the world champions.

This bizarre and spitful action needs to be rigorously questioned and tested by the NZRU legal team when this tour is put to bed. I would be pushing for the resignation of the new chief on the grounds of incompetence, bias and potential reputational loss and illegal financial deprecation.

AWOP, must say from a personal point of view, I enjoyed your posts more before you becameca one eyed NZ supporter.

Any chance you want to climb back in the closet?

Hard to take from a guy who spent a year making snide comments about Bryce Lawrence in every single post to be honest Biltong!

I am like Batman, wherever I see injustice I will be there to defend the rights of the meritorious and persecuted. It's not a one-eyed NZ supporter thing, it's an honestly and integrity thing.

Haven't said anything snide about Lawrence, and it was six months that I criticised him.

To be fair Batman is an All Black

Six looooong months

Still, you made it out through the other side biltong, and now we can laugh about it eh, ha de ha flippin ha.

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.

I was waiting for the 'Machiavellian' to come out. Hardly Machiavellian if you've figured it out AWOP!

Biltong wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Biltong wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I mentioned on the I TOLD YOU SO thread that NZ's NH tour would be controversy riddled...it always is. The ABs by their preeminent position make themselves targets for those who would "drag them back to the pack" by whatever means.

This is no longer an issue about the length of bans. This is about the All Blacks being singled out for "special" attention in a very negative fashion.

Had Thompson been served a two match ban nobody would be complaining - NZ would have replaced him on tour with another player and brought that player up to speed with the team patterns. But to bluff on one week then in an unprecedented attack on the team, randomly extend it by another match denies the team the opportunity to bring in another resource. Frankly its underhanded, it unlawful and it is a fairly blatant and brazen assault on the world champions.

This bizarre and spitful action needs to be rigorously questioned and tested by the NZRU legal team when this tour is put to bed. I would be pushing for the resignation of the new chief on the grounds of incompetence, bias and potential reputational loss and illegal financial deprecation.

AWOP, must say from a personal point of view, I enjoyed your posts more before you becameca one eyed NZ supporter.

Any chance you want to climb back in the closet?

Hard to take from a guy who spent a year making snide comments about Bryce Lawrence in every single post to be honest Biltong!

I am like Batman, wherever I see injustice I will be there to defend the rights of the meritorious and persecuted. It's not a one-eyed NZ supporter thing, it's an honestly and integrity thing.

Haven't said anything snide about Lawrence, and it was six months that I criticised him.

post date: may 10th 2012
SA v AUS RWC 2011 date : Oct 9th 2011

Biltong wrote:Hey, you know how I feel about the guy, and yes I still beleive he did us in, so I like to change his name to Bruce instead of Bryce.

That's snide and more than 6 months later...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think what we all want is consistency. If that starts here then so much the better. I think all AB fans thought one week was too lenient. It would've been better if the judiciary process had come out with two weeks in the first place. All this appeal does is undermine the process and raise issues of inconsistency. But it's been done now and I for one don't have a problem with the decision because that's what he should've got in the first place. But let us hope that what we get in the future is consistency. If the IRB need to step in in order to achieve that then so be it. But what would be better is that the people adjudicating on these matters have clear guidelines and can distinguish what the foul play is and the minimum sentences for ALL players and then go from there based on previous conduct. Surely it can't be as hard as it appears to be.

kiakahaaotearoa AKA Voice of Reason

Riskysports wrote:Wow. For a team that plays well and wins, it is amazing how bad winners some fans can be.

If you want to go all x files on us - maybe open the file on the World Cup final and see how NZ are not being unfairly treated at every opportunity. France could certainly have a case to complain.

All teams have "fans" who don't cast them in the best light. NZ probably have just as many as any one else it's just that we don't have to listen to them until the AI's come round.

I'd imagine that the poster doing most of the stiring would be doing this whether he was a NZ, SA or OZ fan though as it just seems to be his way.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

ebop wrote:

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.

I think the point most of us are making is that thats a load of bullocks. If the IRB reacted to everything the British media said then Wilko wouldve won the last 3 world cups, Sam Warburton wouldve been knighted for the way he saved that French block from falling on his head, and scarf wearing would be mandatory at all public appearances.

Its just embaressing to link what wasnt even a big hooha in the press to the IRBs decision to relook at this and to somehow pretend it has come in isolation and not as the result of an ongiong tension between the IRBs guidance and the application of that by committees.

Its just as easy to cast stones at the NZ Herald and other SH media for painting a picture of NH disciplinary panels being kangaroo courts hell bent on banning their way to parity for intimidating the panel into giving a lenient suspension in the first place.

We can all make up stupid conspiracy theories and play the victim card if we want to.
Whats worrying is the number of New Zealanders who actually seem to genuinely believe this stuff. Its not quite reached the pathetic levels of some of the Samaon fans at the world cup but seriously some people do need to get a grip on relaity

Well said, this post will sadly be ignored amongst all the teeth gnashing and chest beating on this thread though.

I didnt think there was anything in the Thomson event. I think most fair minded people can see there was no intent and no actual dangerous play.

To single out THIS event is very strange considering how many blatantly vastly worse things we've seen recently. If anything it is MORE inconsistent to REVIEW this one...

We have to be honest. The NZ tour to Britain inevitably decends into some manufactured farce and controversy. So metronomic that I posted prior to the tour a tongue-in-cheek poll that actually included this option. So much for "you couldn't make it up". Can't the home naitons just play the rugby and accept the results? At least this year was more creative than the usual Haka based bruhaha.

AWOP,

Pretty sure you are not stupid, which forces me to assume you deliberately misconstrue what people write. I even put the important bit in bold so you could not miss it. Here it goes again:

NO-ONE DESERVES TO BE THE VICTIM OF FOUL PLAY

So Strokosh - if he was killing the ball he deserved to be penalised by the ref. By being where he was he gave Thomson the chance to stamp on his head but He did not deserve to be stamped on.


McCaw is constantly going offside and killing the ball. Refs should penalise him more and issue YCs. By being where he is he gives opponents the chance to stamp on him etc but He does not deserve to be stamped on

LT, I'm sure you are not stupid either. Do you really think he was stamped on?

I don't think it's fair to say that McCaw is constantly going offside and killing the ball and not acknowledge any other openside is doing the same. After all Strokosh was doing it when Thomson stamped on him and I seriously doubt it was an isolated incident. Just because he didn't win and doesn't wear an AB shirt doesn't mean he doesn't test the limits. Pocock does exactly the same - just ask Biltong . but where are his nicknames like Po-faced liar. I imagine if Australia won as many games as NZ did, then we'd start hearing those names.

It's easy to do. I remember in 2003 when I had a burning urge to label that formidable English pack a pack of cheating runts or words to that effect. But you have to step back sometimes and look at your own side first. Believe it or not McCaw does get penalised. Many times he is entitled to compete the ball and many times he does get his hands on the pill legitimately and gets pinged. For example look at the Scotland game where the ref blows up for hands in the ruck even though McCaw does get the ball back legitimately. Of course I will be the first to acknowledge that sometimes he gets away with an illegal act like in the SA match when they were on the line and should've got a yellow card with hands in the ruck. My point is how many situations do your own players do this and yet not have the cheating label. Many times the players test the limits of the game like the offside line, kicking in the ruck, hands in the ruck, releasing from the bind too early, putting in the ball crooked etc and many times the refs don't pick up on it. I cannot understand this mentality that they are a bunch of thieving, cheating mucka fudders and our pristine boys were robbed.

anotherworldofpain wrote:LT, I'm sure you are not stupid either. Do you really think he was stamped on?

Do you really think he wasnt???

I think LT was only mentioning Mccaw as he's the 'victim' of a lot of incidents and we're discussing this with NZers.

You are completely correct though Kia. Every player on every team will try to cheat as much as they can at the breakdown, it's not just the 7's although they do it the most. As an England fan i'll applaud Robshaw if he manages to get away with it and bemoan the ref if the oppo does.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:LT, I'm sure you are not stupid either. Do you really think he was stamped on?

Do you really think he wasnt???

I don't think he was "stamped on". No.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:LT, I'm sure you are not stupid either. Do you really think he was stamped on?

Do you really think he wasnt???

I don't think he was "stamped on". No.

Sorry my mistake it was a clear out

Tell you what PSW. You lie on the ground and then I'll put on a pair of boots and you have the choice:

(a) I stomp on your head
(b) I do what Thomson did to Strokosch.

Which do you pick?

Do I get it on the slow mo replay or at full speed?

Full speed, but you can watch it back later immediately if you chose option (b) or when you get out of intensive care on option (a)

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I don't think it's fair to say that McCaw is constantly going offside and killing the ball and not acknowledge any other openside is doing the same.

We were not talking about other 7s - but if we are i readily admit that at times Neil Back was indeed a cheating little runt. He has the scar tissue on his forehead to prove it.

It's not about if players "deserve" to be fouled, or if Thomson's ban was too lenient or too harsh.

It's about WHY was this ruling over-ruled by the IRB chief from on high? Surely this isn't the worst example of foul play we've seen in the last year? or the most leniently treated?

Given that most judiciary hearings have been for foul play AGAINST All Blacks, why wait until an AB was up on a charge to suddely ride in and insist on a harsher sentence?

It can only be interpreted one way. Stephen Jones is right - there is one rule for everybody else and one rule for the All Blacks.

Straw

That

Broke

The

Camel's

Back

Or you could argue that the IRB (who are actually SANZAR dominated and bend over backwards to keep those 3 countries happy) have it in for New Zealand for threatening to boycott RWC 2015.

Or you could say it is just part of a giant NewsCorp plot to take over all rugby.

Or it was the fault of the man on agrassy gnoll.

Or you could admit you have no reasonable argument to counter the assertion that this whole debacle is absurd, new boy IRB chief has made a bigger man sausage of himself than a French mascott and needs to be fired for gross incompetence before he manages to Frak up rugby any more. Who voted for him anyway? not me.

Can we not just pin this on the Aussies?

Aussie owned media, Aussie led IRB

Who stands to gain the most long term from damaging the all blacks? The fifth best side in the world, or the second?

Who hold the biggest grudges against New Zealand?

I dont think they ever got over Lord of the Rings

I know this is pain’s favourite WUM at the moment and hence the article shouldn’t be taken too seriously. But for the record, although gouging seems to be despised more, a stamp on the head has pretty much the most potential for causing serious harm to the victim, especially if he’s caught in a position where he can’t defend himself (…fractured skull, broken neck, stud in the eye, etc). Mitigation because of lack of ‘intent’ is dubious. How can anyone but himself know his intent? Plus what medical experience has he such that he knows exactly how much force will be harmless (apologies if Thomson is some sort of trauma surgeon specializing in the neck region). Lower end of the scale should be 4 games, increasing for poor record where applicable. Not good enough IRB.

As for picking on the ickle ABs, it’s not funny and it’s not clever. But it is funny.

Sometimes the right thing happens for the wrong reason.

The whole disciplinary system is a farce - and ALL teams have suffered and benefitted.

To turn it into some conspiracy against any one country is the most absurd aspect though.

Any way time to watch some real rugby.

I agree entirely LT, the IRB should not have turned it into a conspiracy against one country!

And it is a farce.

True AWOP they shouldve gone after some Saffers too rather than letting that young chap off scott free. Its not fair we only get to face one depleted side.

Yes Etzebeth "Not Guilty" of eye gouging against Scotland most recently, following his long list of discretions that he has got off scott free for. Lucky he's not an All Black for his sake!

After missing with a head butt on Sharpe and "not quite" gouging Laidlaw; England better hope he doesn't get it right this week...

Quite right awop, I'd say England would have to be very careful of Andrew Hore next week, but to be quite frank, after that complete Judas of a cheapshot, I'd say they probably wont be seeing much of him next Saturday.

What a man.

I'd like it on the record though, that I really don't think that it was a cynical attempt to injure Davies, him being a lock, and Wales not having any replacement locks on the bench.

That would be ridiculous, and cynical, and not at all like New Zealand.

Davies had clearly provoked Hore, I'd like to see the Haka again, I'm guessing Davies coughed or swallowed or blinked or in some other way disrespected the Haka.

Well I hope the IRB throw the book at that total thug Bradley Davies - absolutely disgusting the way he walked into poor Andrew Hore's fist as he was innocently waving to his mum in the crowd - I nominate AWOP the buffoon to lead the campaign

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Yes Etzebeth "Not Guilty" of eye gouging against Scotland most recently, following his long list of discretions that he has got off scott free for. Lucky he's not an All Black for his sake!

After missing with a head butt on Sharpe and "not quite" gouging Laidlaw; England better hope he doesn't get it right this week...

Well lets see if he gets cited for gently kneeing Ben Youngs in the head, then failing to gouge him, then assualting his brothers hands with his head

Another AB citing coming after that chicking sh#t hit from behind by Hore.
ABs sublime and dirty all at the same time.
AWOP: you going to defend Hore then ?

There is some comedy gold on this thread