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.

Brainwashed

Laurie's talking about other instances GG. Not that one.

I'm sure your team and everyone else's is just as bad. We don't know the goings on in a rugby judicial process and it's pretty presumptuous.

NZ also don't complain about other teams as much as some. Take the 99 semi when gouging and ball squeezing were going on and Randell shut up about it in the conference afterwards despite everyone hearing an AB scream he was getting bitten on the audio. Should have taken it into their own hands or did what Eales did but for good or bad they didn't say anything.

Two rights don't make a wrong Chilly.

I was pretty upset with the AB's and I know many others were when they didn't complain to the citing comisioner about the French gouging last year.

Well, the OP was wrong, not for the first time, a week is more than fair for raking someones nut.

If anyone has any doubts about that, I'd only be too happy to have a go myself for a week in the bin.

Seriously, is there anyone still out there?

Do yourselves a favour, build a bridge and giddy-up your bad selves over it.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Very fair judgement which at least shows some consistency in the context of recent rulings in my view.

Funniest thing I've heard in a long time, after the judgement that is

IRB are going to review the decision

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

I hope not. They've had their chances in the past with numerous counts of misconduct getting off lightly and sat on their fat arses whistling.

NZ are used to getting a rough ride in the NH, but if some cashed up union bribes the IRB to ban ABs yet again on the NH tour for no reason at all then it will just about take the biscuit.

.......and the cake.

...and a couple of fruit flans that had gone a bit stale but they figured while they were at it to scoop those up too.

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847571

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847571

Brian Moore? FFS what the flip does it have to do with him? Why is he weighing in with some ill-advised words. Where was he when McCaw was getting stiff armed by Hartley?

And just what the frick is wrong with the IRB? Well that just about sends a message doesn't it. Blatant violent assault on All Blacks is perfectly ok, but if an All Black dares rest his boot on an opposition player then it's expensive inquiries and arbitrary contextless penalties meted out from head office.

What a fricken crock. It makes me disgusted with the game, and frankly I think the ABs should finally make a statement about the incessant lop-sided justice they are perpetually on the end of.

Anyone who can justify a one week ban for a stamp to the head has something wrong with them. Good job he didn’t kill him – might have got a fortnight on the naughty step. I’ve heard there may be an appeal – get it reduced to an hour maybe. Just wait for the day the lawyers get involved – not so much a one week ban as 6 months in prison. The IRB have plumbed new depths.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Anyone who can justify a one week ban for a stamp to the head has something wrong with them. .

If it WAS a stomp Barney I'd agree with you. However from the mouth of the "victim":

"It certainly wasn't malicious. There was no damage done. He barely grazed [my head]. I would say the yellow card's fine. I wouldn't take it any further. It wasn't a big deal."

Do you think he "has something wrong with him"?

Once again the Brit media has fallen all over itself to portray NZ as "villains" in a pantomime where they are actually the victims.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847571

Brian Moore? FFS what the flip does it have to do with him? Why is he weighing in with some ill-advised words. Where was he when McCaw was getting stiff armed by Hartley?

And just what the frick is wrong with the IRB? Well that just about sends a message doesn't it. Blatant violent assault on All Blacks is perfectly ok, but if an All Black dares rest his boot on an opposition player then it's expensive inquiries and arbitrary contextless penalties meted out from head office.

What a fricken crock. It makes me disgusted with the game, and frankly I think the ABs should finally make a statement about the incessant lop-sided justice they are perpetually on the end of.

Lol, calm down GG!

Rest his boot.... violent assault... Do you actually read what you put up on here!??

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847571

Brian Moore? FFS what the flip does it have to do with him? Why is he weighing in with some ill-advised words. Where was he when McCaw was getting stiff armed by Hartley?

And just what the frick is wrong with the IRB? Well that just about sends a message doesn't it. Blatant violent assault on All Blacks is perfectly ok, but if an All Black dares rest his boot on an opposition player then it's expensive inquiries and arbitrary contextless penalties meted out from head office.

What a fricken crock. It makes me disgusted with the game, and frankly I think the ABs should finally make a statement about the incessant lop-sided justice they are perpetually on the end of.

But if a stamp to the head is worth one week in your view then a stiff arm is probably medal earning behaviour surely?

This is a placatory step taken by the IRB to appease the British public, who in fairness are the paying public, to these All Black games.

Anything that suggests to the public that the All blacks are in any way disadvantaged, in this instance by a suspension goes over really well with the public. and the IRB look good in their eyes.

The citing process is far too inconsistent but NZ get aay with plety as well over the piece. Its not biased just inconsistent. I think most of us believe Hartley should have had a substantial ban for the forearm on McCaw for example

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Anyone who can justify a one week ban for a stamp to the head has something wrong with them. .

If it WAS a stomp Barney I'd agree with you. However from the mouth of the "victim":

"It certainly wasn't malicious. There was no damage done. He barely grazed [my head]. I would say the yellow card's fine. I wouldn't take it any further. It wasn't a big deal."

Do you think he "has something wrong with him"?

Once again the Brit media has fallen all over itself to portray NZ as "villains" in a pantomime where they are actually the victims.

Its on bloody YouTube silly! You can watch it for yourself!?? You can see his head pushed down to the floor by his foot!
I'd strongly suggest you stop reading NZ press, because at the moment your spouting just as much rubbish!

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Anyone who can justify a one week ban for a stamp to the head has something wrong with them. .

If it WAS a stomp Barney I'd agree with you. However from the mouth of the "victim":

"It certainly wasn't malicious. There was no damage done. He barely grazed [my head]. I would say the yellow card's fine. I wouldn't take it any further. It wasn't a big deal."

Do you think he "has something wrong with him"?
Once again the Brit media has fallen all over itself to portray NZ as "villains" in a pantomime where they are actually the victims.

He's clearly got concussion from a vicious kick to the head.

It's biased TJ when the IRB step in as soon as NZ get a consistent ruling and not before.

I actually feel like firing up my I TOLD YOU SO thread, because if you check, I predicted that just this VERY thing would happen.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
This is a placatory step taken by the IRB to appease the British public, who in fairness are the paying public, to these All Black games.

Anything that suggests to the public that the All blacks are in any way disadvantaged, in this instance by a suspension goes over really well with the public. and the IRB look good in their eyes.

Utter nonsense. its a lenient ban but inline with the rules. Boot to head gets you banned, no injury or force used - short ban. I thought 2weeks but can acccept one.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
This is a placatory step taken by the IRB to appease the British public, who in fairness are the paying public, to these All Black games.

Anything that suggests to the public that the All blacks are in any way disadvantaged, in this instance by a suspension goes over really well with the public. and the IRB look good in their eyes.

Rubbish, I'm sure the IRB look at all incidents they can and not cherry pick them to "please" the fans.

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
This is a placatory step taken by the IRB to appease the British public, who in fairness are the paying public, to these All Black games.

Anything that suggests to the public that the All blacks are in any way disadvantaged, in this instance by a suspension goes over really well with the public. and the IRB look good in their eyes.

Rubbish, I'm sure the IRB look at all incidents they can and not cherry pick them to "please" the fans.

What are you talking about? THis is same IRB who refused to do anything about McCaw getting eye gouged in the RWC final right because they said they couldn't intervene in the citing process? Do you remember that? Or is it an entirely new IRB who operate by a different set of rules and I was busy paying attention to reality?

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847571

Brian Moore? FFS what the flip does it have to do with him? Why is he weighing in with some ill-advised words. Where was he when McCaw was getting stiff armed by Hartley?

And just what the frick is wrong with the IRB? Well that just about sends a message doesn't it. Blatant violent assault on All Blacks is perfectly ok, but if an All Black dares rest his boot on an opposition player then it's expensive inquiries and arbitrary contextless penalties meted out from head office.

What a fricken crock. It makes me disgusted with the game, and frankly I think the ABs should finally make a statement about the incessant lop-sided justice they are perpetually on the end of.

AWOP, sorry mate, but that is a nonsense comment.

The IRB have defended or protected the All Blacks on occasions as well. Just take their stance on the Haka as an example.

Compare some bans that were issued in the past, then be honest with yourself, the All Blacks are not treated unfairly.

TJ wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
This is a placatory step taken by the IRB to appease the British public, who in fairness are the paying public, to these All Black games.

Anything that suggests to the public that the All blacks are in any way disadvantaged, in this instance by a suspension goes over really well with the public. and the IRB look good in their eyes.

Utter nonsense. its a lenient ban but inline with the rules. Boot to head gets you banned, no injury or force used - short ban. I thought 2weeks but can acccept one.

TJ
How often do you hear of the IRB appealing decisions, you got to admit its pretty rare.

Oh yes, bring up the Haka, that's relevant.

Man these NH tours descend into predictable farce every year don't they? Every year the NH get their collective arses kicked and then resort to this kind of thing. It's like a sulking child taking his ball and going home. It really makes me guffaw. Honestly, it does.

anotherworldofpain wrote:It's biased TJ when the IRB step in as soon as NZ get a consistent ruling and not before.

I actually feel like firing up my I TOLD YOU SO thread, because if you check, I predicted that just this VERY thing would happen.

And what makes you think the irb have only looked at this ruling, how do you know they don't look over every ruling?

Please stop with this bloody "we're hard done by" crap!

The All Blacks are the best team in the world and their fans still find something to always moan about. Then they have the cheek to us whining poms.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Oh yes, bring up the Haka, that's relevant.

Man these NH tours descend into predictable farce every year don't they? Every year the NH get their collective arses kicked and then resort to this kind of thing. It's like a sulking child taking his ball and going home.

Oh of course anything that proves your point wrong is "not relevant"....

So Nathan would you like to provide some evidence of the IRB interevening in any previous citing ruling?

Admit it, this stinks to high hell.

Indeed. Its not biased just inconsistent - all countries have gripes and feel hard done by

A week for a boot to the head is not excessive at all - its lenient but probably rightly so.

do you really think he should have received no ban?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TJ wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
This is a placatory step taken by the IRB to appease the British public, who in fairness are the paying public, to these All Black games.

Anything that suggests to the public that the All blacks are in any way disadvantaged, in this instance by a suspension goes over really well with the public. and the IRB look good in their eyes.

Utter nonsense. its a lenient ban but inline with the rules. Boot to head gets you banned, no injury or force used - short ban. I thought 2weeks but can acccept one.

TJ
How often do you hear of the IRB appealing decisions, you got to admit its pretty rare.

There not appealing it, there looking into it. Its pretty rare to hear about it, just that mean its pretty rare for them to do it... No!

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Oh yes, bring up the Haka, that's relevant.

Man these NH tours descend into predictable farce every year don't they? Every year the NH get their collective arses kicked and then resort to this kind of thing. It's like a sulking child taking his ball and going home.

Oh of course anything that proves your point wrong is "not relevant"....

Mate, moaning on about the Haka is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand - IRB randomly intervening over the outcome of a citing. And your "Point" doesn't "prove" anything, other than underlining some sad cliches.

Biltong wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847571

Brian Moore? FFS what the flip does it have to do with him? Why is he weighing in with some ill-advised words. Where was he when McCaw was getting stiff armed by Hartley?

And just what the frick is wrong with the IRB? Well that just about sends a message doesn't it. Blatant violent assault on All Blacks is perfectly ok, but if an All Black dares rest his boot on an opposition player then it's expensive inquiries and arbitrary contextless penalties meted out from head office.

What a fricken crock. It makes me disgusted with the game, and frankly I think the ABs should finally make a statement about the incessant lop-sided justice they are perpetually on the end of.

AWOP, sorry mate, but that is a nonsense comment.

The IRB have defended or protected the All Blacks on occasions as well. Just take their stance on the Haka as an example.
Compare some bans that were issued in the past, then be honest with yourself, the All Blacks are not treated unfairly.

Biltong: Thats a dumb comment, so do you say that when Samoa, Tonga and Fiji perform their traditional challenges that they are getting preferential treatment or is it just some perceived injustice on your part?

anotherworldofpain wrote:So Nathan would you like to provide some evidence of the IRB interevening in any previous citing ruling?

Admit it, this stinks to high hell.

Why do I need to provide evidence? Could you provide evidence that the irb have intervened? All they have said (on twitter) is that they'll look at it, it's in there jurisdiction. Does that mean they will intervene, no. Does that mean they don't look at every ruling? No

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:So Nathan would you like to provide some evidence of the IRB interevening in any previous citing ruling?

Admit it, this stinks to high hell.

Why do I need to provide evidence? Could you provide evidence that the irb have intervened? All they have said (on twitter) is that they'll look at it, it's in there jurisdiction. Does that mean they will intervene, no. Does that mean they don't look at every ruling? No

"The International Rugby Board are considering altering their disciplinary procedures after finding themselves unable to review the allegation of foul play during last month’s World Cup final."

Funny how they were UNABLE just a year ago, but suddenly ABLE now. I can't find any evidence that the disciplinary procedures were altered, it certainly isn't mentioned in any press release by the IRB and there is no notice of outcomes on their site.

Something smells like a fish.

Looks like the ball is in your court to prove your claim or retract it...

anotherworldofpain wrote:

nathan wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:So Nathan would you like to provide some evidence of the IRB interevening in any previous citing ruling?

Admit it, this stinks to high hell.

Why do I need to provide evidence? Could you provide evidence that the irb have intervened? All they have said (on twitter) is that they'll look at it, it's in there jurisdiction. Does that mean they will intervene, no. Does that mean they don't look at every ruling? No

"The International Rugby Board are considering altering their disciplinary procedures after finding themselves unable to review the allegation of foul play during last month’s World Cup final."

Funny how they were UNABLE just a year ago, but suddenly ABLE now. I can't find any evidence that the disciplinary procedures were altered, it certainly isn't mentioned in any press release by the IRB and there is no notice of outcomes on their site.

Something smells like a fish.

Looks like the ball is in your court to prove your claim or retract it...

So you've given a quote saying the irb are considering changing the ruling and then can't find anything else. Hardly what you would call conclusive...

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:IRB are going to review the decision

Any links to that?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847571

Brian Moore? FFS what the flip does it have to do with him? Why is he weighing in with some ill-advised words. Where was he when McCaw was getting stiff armed by Hartley?

And just what the frick is wrong with the IRB? Well that just about sends a message doesn't it. Blatant violent assault on All Blacks is perfectly ok, but if an All Black dares rest his boot on an opposition player then it's expensive inquiries and arbitrary contextless penalties meted out from head office.

What a fricken crock. It makes me disgusted with the game, and frankly I think the ABs should finally make a statement about the incessant lop-sided justice they are perpetually on the end of.

AWOP, sorry mate, but that is a nonsense comment.

The IRB have defended or protected the All Blacks on occasions as well. Just take their stance on the Haka as an example.
Compare some bans that were issued in the past, then be honest with yourself, the All Blacks are not treated unfairly.

Biltong: Thats a dumb comment, so do you say that when Samoa, Tonga and Fiji perform their traditional challenges that they are getting preferential treatment or is it just some perceived injustice on your part?

How is that a dumb comment, firstly I love the Haka's, so much so that my son and I during rugby season perform the Kamate in the morning standing in the hallway.

It is relevant to the point that the IRB has taken a stance on how teams may react or behave towards the Haka. It points to AWOP's comment that the All Blacks are treated unfairly by the IRB.

TJ wrote:Indeed. Its not biased just inconsistent - all countries have gripes and feel hard done by

A week for a boot to the head is not excessive at all - its lenient but probably rightly so.

do you really think he should have received no ban?

When you say a boot to the head you appear to be presenting it as a kick to the head which in my eyes it wasnt, personally I thought the yellow card was sufficient.

We are talking about the context of the disciplinary process here, not pre-match protocol. And if you think about it the respect demanded by the IRB for the Haka pales in comparison to the regulations around opposition behaviour during God Save The Queen, so it's hardly "favourable" treatment.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TJ wrote:Indeed. Its not biased just inconsistent - all countries have gripes and feel hard done by

A week for a boot to the head is not excessive at all - its lenient but probably rightly so.

do you really think he should have received no ban?

When you say a boot to the head you appear to be presenting it as a kick to the head which in my eyes it wasnt, personally I thought the yellow card was sufficient.

As did the "victim". This is just typical British media horse petookie and it surprises me not one little bit that NZ are being portrayed as pantomime villains yet again before a match at Twickenham.

anotherworldofpain wrote:We are talking about the context of the disciplinary process here, not pre-match protocol. And if you think about it the respect demanded by the IRB for the Haka pales in comparison to the regulations around opposition behaviour during God Save The Queen, so it's hardly "favourable" treatment.

Hmmm, are those goal posts moving?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TJ wrote:Indeed. Its not biased just inconsistent - all countries have gripes and feel hard done by

A week for a boot to the head is not excessive at all - its lenient but probably rightly so.

do you really think he should have received no ban?

When you say a boot to the head you appear to be presenting it as a kick to the head which in my eyes it wasnt, personally I thought the yellow card was sufficient.

If you follow the rules it should have been red hence the short ban. One week is lenient but not outrageously so. |It wasn't a kick to the head no - to my eyes it looked more like a warning placing of the foot - no significant force. I think the outcome is about right - maybe two weeks as I said originally.

Look, I agree it is uncommon for the IRB to "review" judicial decisions, however it is a very lenient ban that Thomson got.

Lenient - not very lenient and perhpas justifiable.

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.

anotherworld - it is not insanely harsh. - you really think he should not have got a ban for it? he should have been red carded. a week or two is fair and right IMO. No bad would have been a travesty. 12 weeks would be insanely harsh, 6 harsh. Look at your opening post above - yo seem to have called it right.

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.

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.

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.