No citings from the weekend then?

First topic message reminder :

So the Rugby World and IRB are telling everyone we should all love Samoa because despite their many disadvantages their good performances seem to have levelled the playing field. Evident from their Aus win since before the RWC. So that means we should allow them to do the illegalities?

Bolox to that. Sort it out citing commisioners. There are at least 3 Samoan players who could be cited from their last game with the possibility of just the one receiving a ban. Sorry folks I want the pacific island teams to do well as much as the next rugby fan but I'm not part of this Samoa love-in.

Morgannwg wrote:

TJ wrote:Onbly in your opinion.

None of the three incidents you highlight from the Wales / Samoa game were IMO worthy of a red card thus no citing. The officials agree. No inconsistency at all - the other incidents you mention are not identical. Significant differences.

However you are convinced you are right. I understand why you think this but with an objective eye I do not agree. At the time I said no red card, now I think the same. Yellow would have been right IMO

You do not have to issue a red card to cite an incident - but you can only cite incidents where a red card was merited.

So it's your opinion too. Funny that I'm being slated for 'my opinion.' I'm pointing out if identical incidents are worthy of a citing then those in Wales/Samoa game should have been. The incidents where Jones, Biggar and Ronan were on the receiving end are identical.

You're not being slated at all. What people are asking you to do is distinguish between opinion and fact. You have been claiming that it is fact that you are right when you say that the Samoan players should have been cited as the other examples you have given were. What others are saying is that their opinion is the incidents were different and therefore the citing commissioner was right to lay no charges.

You are entitled to your opinion, however if you claim that it is fact when there is no evidence to support it as being so, then it will be challenged by others.

All three incidents were foul play, should have been penalties, should have been yellow cards. None where definitely worthy of a red hence no citing.

Morgannwg wrote:Cyril, no idea who let you back in but I have not mentioned the result. The ref was poor, they should have seen a yellow but despite all of this there was no way we could breach their defence or deal with their attack and ball carriers. Despite the stuff I have highlighted they played some wonderful rugby.

Morgan,

If you say that Samoa should have seen a yellow then you have already accepted that no citings should have been handed out.

Several of us have explained the citing process and the fact that only offences which should have received a RED card are citable and yet you persist in saying that there should have been 3 Samoans cited.

You are not making any sense.

Sorry to wade in, but IRB rules 17.6.2.c state: -

"A Player may be cited by the Citing Commissioner if he has been
Temporarily Suspended. Such citing may be made in respect of the
incident or incidents for which the Player was Temporarily
Suspended or otherwise;"

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

It does seem the freezer treatment isn't working for us anymore though

Yes thats right - they can be cited if given a yellow card when it should have been a red

they cannot be cited if given a yellow card and that is what the offense merited

Huwball wrote:Sorry to wade in, but IRB rules 17.6.2.c state: -

"A Player may be cited by the Citing Commissioner if he has been
Temporarily Suspended. Such citing may be made in respect of the
incident or incidents for which the Player was Temporarily
Suspended or otherwise;"

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

It does seem the freezer treatment isn't working for us anymore though

Yep - that's to cover cases where a ref only issued a yellow but should have gone red - back when citings first came in you could only be cited for things the ref didn't see. So if a ref only issued a penalty for something there was no follow up.

17.6.2 is pretty clear:

(a) Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to cite a player for any act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play which in the opinion of the Citing Commissioner warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off; - establishing the threshold
(b) Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play even where such act or acts may have been detected by the referee and/or touch judge and which may have been the subject of action taken by the referee and/or touch judge. A Citing Commissioner may not, however, cite a Player for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off; - since an ordering off already means a hearing there's no need for another citing
(c) A Player may be cited by the Citing Commissioner if he has been Temporarily Suspended. Such citing may be made in respect of the incident or incidents for which the Player was Temporarily Suspended or otherwise; - basically covering where a ref doesn't fully see an incident or bottles issuing a red

Morgannwg wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:When AWOP pointed out that Sam Whitelock was tipped off the ball he got nothing but personal abuse for it.

Inconsistency and double standards in the global internets.

Zzzzzzzzzzz. I thought awop was alone in thinking that? Which is why his post was locked by a moderator because he was deemed wrong. Now please trot along.

Actually I locked it because I was fed up of him making mountains out of molehills and the thread was heading downhill at a fair rate of knots.

AWOP was often correct in his initial premises. It's just that things generally got swept away in a sea of hyperbole and exaggeration.

I assumed Biltong locked it, who also said he was wrong along with his thread/facts being null and void. Just about everyone who dropped by disagreed with him. The 'tip tackle' is a bit of a difficult one to discuss though. PSW was just posting more pointless comments like he did on Andrew Hore thread.

You really are one for the false accusation arent you. My post on that thread was to point out the time in the match when it happened. If anything it was the only post that had a point in the entire thing which otherwise consisted of denial and abuse and AWOP winding people up. The only factual error in it was that he got the player wrong because I have said I thought it may have been Warburton. I just find it baffling that on one hand you can abuse people for that then on the other post an article defaming an entire nation and still claim some form of objectivity.
As for the other thread you refer to, I posted a serious and relevant comment (which discussed foul play from nations including NZ and England) which you repsonded to in aaggresive and abussive fashion because I called Davies "no angel" in saying that all players should be subject to the same laws and then some light hearted ones to try and calm the situation down, which you then got dragged into being aggressive to me and another poster over.

I left you to it in the end but you stil continued to post abussive comments about me in other threads, even when I hadnt repsonded directly to you.

Do you see a pattern here?

Please visit Glas a du's article.

I stand corrected Pete

MrsP wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Cyril, no idea who let you back in but I have not mentioned the result. The ref was poor, they should have seen a yellow but despite all of this there was no way we could breach their defence or deal with their attack and ball carriers. Despite the stuff I have highlighted they played some wonderful rugby.

Morgan,

If you say that Samoa should have seen a yellow then you have already accepted that no citings should have been handed out.

Several of us have explained the citing process and the fact that only offences which should have received a RED card are citable and yet you persist in saying that there should have been 3 Samoans cited.

You are not making any sense.

See the rule Pete posted. And that depends, if you think an elbow or trying to choke somebody out is a red card offence. Previous examples, such as O'Connell's elbow on Jon Thomas show that this is a red card offence. He picked up the red card. Hence, there were argueably some red card offences dished out in this game.

The clearout on Biggar was identical to Botha's on Adam Jones in the Lions test 09. So it seems that is also deemed a red card offence. Also hence why Jake Ball is cited. How can that not make sense to you?

Morgannwg wrote:

MrsP wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Cyril, no idea who let you back in but I have not mentioned the result. The ref was poor, they should have seen a yellow but despite all of this there was no way we could breach their defence or deal with their attack and ball carriers. Despite the stuff I have highlighted they played some wonderful rugby.

Morgan,

If you say that Samoa should have seen a yellow then you have already accepted that no citings should have been handed out.

Several of us have explained the citing process and the fact that only offences which should have received a RED card are citable and yet you persist in saying that there should have been 3 Samoans cited.

You are not making any sense.

See the rule Pete posted. And that depends, if you think an elbow or trying to choke somebody out is a red card offence. Previous examples, such as O'Connell's elbow on Jon Thomas show that this is a red card offence. He picked up the red card. Hence, there were argueably some red card offences dished out in this game.

The clearout on Biggar was identical to Botha's on Adam Jones in the Lions test 09. So it seems that is also deemed a red card offence. Also hence why Jake Ball is cited. How can that not make sense to you?

While I don't particularly want to get into this debate as I haven't seen all of the incidents, under the laws of the game Botha's clear out shouldn't have been a red card, the punishment seemed to be a result of the damage caused (hence the Saffa's rather petulant "justice 4" protest). So it's entirely possible that the prior incidents were wrongly red, rather than the other way around.

Yeah could be Pete. The way it's going though maybe it should be an offence. Or not at all.

Morgan.

You said the incidents in the wales v Samoa game deserved a YELLOW CARD.

" Re: No citings from the weekend then?
by Morgannwg on Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:12 pm

.Cyril, no idea who let you back in but I have not mentioned the result. The ref was poor, they should have seen a yellow but despite all of this there was no way we could breach their defence or deal with their attack and ball carriers. Despite the stuff I have highlighted they played some wonderful rugby"

Are you with me so far? You did write that, didn't you? I haven't made that up or misquoted you?

Several of us have showed you from several scources that only offences serious enough to warrant a RED CARD can be cited.

Therefore, surely you must be able to see that even you have said those offences very not serious enough to warrant a citing?





If you can't see that then either you are being deliberately obtuse or .....

And, Mrs P, I've just made a point, that in the real world using real life examples that perhaps there were some red card offences during the game. The discussion has evolved since the first comments. Please keep up instead of pedanticaly dragging up weeks old comments.

Well Morgan I will have to admit it is very hard to keep up with all of your U turns, changes of mind and misunderstandings of the Laws of the game.

Morgan "They were yellow cards offences in the game! Cite them!!!"

Rest of the World "You can only cite red card offences!"

Morgan "What? Of course you can cite yellow card offences. You always could."

Rest of the World "No, you can't. It has to be a red card offence!"

Morgan "Yes you can! Here's a time when someone got a yellow and was cited."

Rest of the World "No! It has to be a red card offence!"

Morgan "Yes you can!"

Rest of the World "No you can't!"

Morgan "Yes you can!"

Rest of the World "No you can't!"

Morgan "Oh, you can't?"

Rest of the World "That's right. You can't!"

Morgan "Well then they must have been reds then! Clearly red cards. Cite them!"

Still resorting to being a child when you have nothing to disprove with? I see it's becoming your last retort. I not denying being wrong earlier in the thread but just accept the factual evidence I gave to prove my point the way I took yours.

Didn't think any were red and none warrant a citing (IMO of course). Pulling a guy out of the ruck by their neck should have yellow but it happens in a lot of games and usually doesn't even get a penalty. It seems the IRB aren't concerned about that. The 'elbow' was a ruck clearout (as JD said at the time) and certainly wasn't (again IMO) an 'elbow' (unless the 'elbow' refers to something else).

What was the third?

The adam jones incident was not identical to he Biggar in any way. Was it not afterthe whistle had blown? the penalty was given for no arms - yet in the biggar case its the swingin arm athat did the damage.

swo there are two major differnce

What FACTUAl evidence have you provided. You have only provided your opinion which the rest of us disagree with

Morgannwg wrote:Still resorting to being a child when you have nothing to disprove with? I see it's becoming your last retort. I not denying being wrong earlier in the thread but just accept the factual evidence I gave to prove my point the way I took yours.

What FACTUAL evidence? You mean your opinion that different incidents are identical?

the facts of the matter are they wer not red card offences thus cannot be cited.

Guys, not sure it's worth the effort.

I suspect Justin Harrison may have just had to surrender his nickname to Morgan.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

MrsP wrote:Well Morgan I will have to admit it is very hard to keep up with all of your U turns, changes of mind and misunderstandings of the Laws of the game.

Morgan "They were yellow cards offences in the game! Cite them!!!"

Rest of the World "You can only cite red card offences!"

Morgan "What? Of course you can cite yellow card offences. You always could."

Rest of the World "No, you can't. It has to be a red card offence!"

Morgan "Yes you can! Here's a time when someone got a yellow and was cited."

Rest of the World "No! It has to be a red card offence!"

Morgan "Yes you can!"

Rest of the World "No you can't!"

Morgan "Yes you can!"

Rest of the World "No you can't!"

Morgan "Oh, you can't?"

Rest of the World "That's right. You can't!"

Morgan "Well then they must have been reds then! Clearly red cards. Cite them!"

Ah MrsP, its too easy - time for you to find a more worthy foe

TJ wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Still resorting to being a child when you have nothing to disprove with? I see it's becoming your last retort. I not denying being wrong earlier in the thread but just accept the factual evidence I gave to prove my point the way I took yours.

What FACTUAL evidence? You mean your opinion that different incidents are identical?

the facts of the matter are they wer not red card offences thus cannot be cited.

The identical incidents, there is footage available.

Some nice responses guys. A few of you need to grow up. Particulary Mrs P who has directed pathetic behaviour towards me over the past few days.

TJ wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Still resorting to being a child when you have nothing to disprove with? I see it's becoming your last retort. I not denying being wrong earlier in the thread but just accept the factual evidence I gave to prove my point the way I took yours.

What FACTUAL evidence? You mean your opinion that different incidents are identical?

the facts of the matter are they wer not red card offences thus cannot be cited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CM-_JlG64 Jones

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biggar+clear+out&oq=biggar+clear+out&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3...11607696.11613225.0.11613787.20.17.2.0.0.0.490.3687.4j4j6j1j2.17.0...0.0...1ac.1.E19BSUeTqAs Biggar

Both were just dives at the player into the ruck. Except Botha's doesn't look as bad. So if that is a citing, then so is the one on Biggar.

As is an elbow, a red card offence. Those are the facts.

The shoulder charge on Hibbard, I think that one is the most debatable. It was a shoulder charge but there were extenuating factos that probably made it look worse than it was.

That is not any facts - merely your opinions. You need to have a looking the dictionary at the meaning of the word fact

I've given you the evidence yet you're adamant on still going around in circles. I'm beginning to think this is just your hobby. After the fool you made of yourself on the Wales/Argentina thread you still swoop from article to article trying to be the pedantic know-it-all. You're boring now.

Yes you have given the evidence but you still keep claiming your opinions are fact. Many of us hold different opinions. we could claim them as factbut accept they are opinions

I did not make a fool of myself on the other thread beyond arguing with idiots who ground me down with their experience

Both of us need to learn when to drop it tho. For both of us this moment is long past. Truce?

I must say I'm with Morgannwg on this one: my first though on viewing the highlights was that the "clear-out" on Biggar deserved a citing. I think there is an element of: "it's the way the Samoans play" to it, and hence maybe they get away with a bit...

Morgannwg - both of us ( and plenty of others) need to remember this
http://xkcd.com/386/

TJ wrote:Yes you have given the evidence but you still keep claiming your opinions are fact. Many of us hold different opinions. we could claim them as factbut accept they are opinions

I did not make a fool of myself on the other thread beyond arguing with idiots who ground me down with their experience

Both of us need to learn when to drop it tho. For both of us this moment is long past. Truce?

I posted a law, which is fact (other posted evidence to back up what they were saying too). I thought, that under those rules there were offences and perhaps one worth a citing.

OKay TJ , truce. Nice link BTW .