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.

I think the WRU should seriously think before playing teams like Samoa and Tonga as they are risking players careers, yes you can say they are up for the game but the officials in that game were poor in the extreme at protecting players from serious injury. Barnes saw both the Halfpenny and Owens incidents both yellow cards as a minimum, Dan Biggar's career is lucky his career is not over, I saw him after the game he had a black eye, stitches above his eye and his arm in a sling. R Hibbard also took a number of tackles with no arms involved had his arm in a sling, his was more serious than Dam's shoulder. There was also another incident when Warbuton nearly copped it when the Samoan 7 pulled out as the ref blew, the intent was there.

Samoa deserved to win but these guys are thugs that got away with it, I hope the officials watched the game back to monitor their performance if they care.

Well look here Mrs P/Ozzy; http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/munsters-ronan-gets-all-clear-as-scarlets-forward-ball-cited-for-challenge-215231.html

It appears there has been a citing for a charge at the ruck, similar to the one that happened to Biggar. Although the one on Biggar was just meant with the intent to hurt and barely looked legal at the time. Although I may have to re-watch both incidents to give a final opinion on whether one is bad, worse, legal, illegal.

But yeah, basically I was right (as always). Apologies accepted.

glamorganalun wrote:I think the WRU should seriously think before playing teams like Samoa and Tonga as they are risking players careers, yes you can say they are up for the game but the officials in that game were poor in the extreme at protecting players from serious injury. Barnes saw both the Halfpenny and Owens incidents both yellow cards as a minimum, Dan Biggar's career is lucky his career is not over, I saw him after the game he had a black eye, stitches above his eye and his arm in a sling. R Hibbard also took a number of tackles with no arms involved had his arm in a sling, his was more serious than Dam's shoulder. There was also another incident when Warbuton nearly copped it when the Samoan 7 pulled out as the ref blew, the intent was there.

Samoa deserved to win but these guys are thugs that got away with it, I hope the officials watched the game back to monitor their performance if they care.

Surely its the referee that is at fault more than the IRB.

Morgannwg wrote:Well look here Mrs P/Ozzy; http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/munsters-ronan-gets-all-clear-as-scarlets-forward-ball-cited-for-challenge-215231.html

It appears there has been a citing for a charge at the ruck, similar to the one that happened to Biggar. Although the one on Biggar was just meant with the intent to hurt and barely looked legal at the time. Although I may have to re-watch both incidents to give a final opinion on whether one is bad, worse, legal, illegal.

But yeah, basically I was right (as always). Apologies accepted.

I haven't seen the incident Morg, so can't comment as to whether or not it bears comparison to the incident in Wales defeat to Samoa. Do feel free however to remain on your soap box and post in a holier than thou style clearly designed to prompt a barbed response. You never know, at some point in the near future you may well get some reward for it.

maestegmafia wrote:

glamorganalun wrote:I think the WRU should seriously think before playing teams like Samoa and Tonga as they are risking players careers, yes you can say they are up for the game but the officials in that game were poor in the extreme at protecting players from serious injury. Barnes saw both the Halfpenny and Owens incidents both yellow cards as a minimum, Dan Biggar's career is lucky his career is not over, I saw him after the game he had a black eye, stitches above his eye and his arm in a sling. R Hibbard also took a number of tackles with no arms involved had his arm in a sling, his was more serious than Dam's shoulder. There was also another incident when Warbuton nearly copped it when the Samoan 7 pulled out as the ref blew, the intent was there.

Samoa deserved to win but these guys are thugs that got away with it, I hope the officials watched the game back to monitor their performance if they care.

Surely its the referee that is at fault more than the IRB.

The officials in both games either missed, or ignored the incidents. Either both should have been cited, or none at all. The 'clearout' against Biggar was one of three that could have been cited.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Well look here Mrs P/Ozzy; http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/munsters-ronan-gets-all-clear-as-scarlets-forward-ball-cited-for-challenge-215231.html

It appears there has been a citing for a charge at the ruck, similar to the one that happened to Biggar. Although the one on Biggar was just meant with the intent to hurt and barely looked legal at the time. Although I may have to re-watch both incidents to give a final opinion on whether one is bad, worse, legal, illegal.

But yeah, basically I was right (as always). Apologies accepted.

I haven't seen the incident Morg, so can't comment as to whether or not it bears comparison to the incident in Wales defeat to Samoa. Do feel free however to remain on your soap box and post in a holier than thou style clearly designed to prompt a barbed response. You never know, at some point in the near future you may well get some reward for it.

Well you were wrong in saying there were no red card incidents were in the Wales/Samoa game. There were two. That's if you believe this clearout that ball has been cited for is a red card offence. My reward is knowing that I am the king of V2.

I think you might find the citing commissioner makes me right, and as the IRB never sought to appeal the citing commissioner's decision, they clearly make him right and by extension me right also.

Never mind mate, you can pop your crown back it's box for a bit until there's a battle you actually win.

As I was also right in saying there were three offences in the Wales/Samoa game worth citing? You said there were none. Surely this citing on Ball proves there was at least one? I even presented evidence to you before this Ball citing anyway.

Clearly they were not worth citing otherwise the citing commissioner would have cited them Morg. Move on, nothing to see here, the decision has been made no matter how much you dislike it, disagree with it, or protest.

Because they decided not to act on either of the 3 incidents in the Wales/Samoa game does not mean they were not worth citing. I've shown you that with a few examples and it again reiterates my point that there was a Samoa love-in in the rugby world and that people the IRB employ are dull and inconsistent. I would just like you show some remorse for claiming such barbarious assaults on Wales players were nothing to cry about. Now hand me back my crown please.

Whilst I agree with you that the disciplinary process globally is inconsistent and flawed, it still doesn't mean the incidents in this game were worthy of citings.

In all seriousness, the board is crying out for a decent article about the disciplinary process, with no thinly veiled insults or national bias, so we can all debate the issues that there are at the moment.

Any chance that you'd care to have a stab at one for us. Could be some great debate for all to had with it.

Morgannwg wrote:

TJ wrote:if citings are only for red card incidents were any of those red cards? I am not at all sure

But citings aren't strictly for red card offences and never have been.

Sooooo.....

That statement was right how exactly?

It's about as wrong as any wrong thing could be.

Inaccurate. Factually incorrect. Untrue. False.

Some may even say you were as wrong as one of the characters from the Telly Tubbies.

In all seriousness, the board is crying out for a decent article about the disciplinary process, with no thinly veiled insults or national bias, so we can all debate the issues that there are at the moment.

That's too much effort for me. Busy busy with uni work.

Mrs P, read what I said to Ozzy.

I have.

Twice.

Still trying to find the part where you were right.

How is stating that,

".... citings aren't strictly for red card offences and never have been. "

right?

In what sense is it correct?

Mrs P I thought we cleared that up over a week ago? Previous offences that lead to citings and bans were not red card offences. So, either both incidents (the clearout on Biggar and the clearout on Ronan) were red card offences that went unpunished in the game or they are not red card offences at all. Only one has been cited. So what's it to be? As you seem to think Ball is derserved of a citing/ban(?) on another thread.

MrsP wrote:Morgannwg,

Had a wee quick look and found this although the threshold for citing as an offence which could/should have warranted a red card is well known. As you can see it is actually called the Red Card Test. T'was ever thus AFAIK.

http://www.nowrugby.com/changes-to-the-citing-rules-for-english-premiership-and-championship/6562.htm#

Hope it helps.

Apart from the "accumulated yellow" thing for the RFU which is new, an offence is only citable if it passes the red card test.

I did explain it last week but you don't seem to have read it.

I read it, hence why I said;

Mrs P I thought we cleared that up over a week ago?

There's Carters closeline that was cited, Powells closeline on McCaw a year later that wasn't cited, now these two incidents I brought to your attention. I'm not referring to the trial in AP.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Whilst I agree with you that the disciplinary process globally is inconsistent and flawed, it still doesn't mean the incidents in this game were worthy of citings.

Then surely that doesn't mean that you are correct to say that the citing commissioner is correct in his decision if his institution is inconsistent and flawed?

You give two scenarios that contradict each other. A correct decision cant be made by an organisational body that is in effect invariably wrong in their decisions.

So,

What were these "non red card offences" that lead to bannings?

I just listed them . Carter was banned for a high tackle on Roberts, a penalty was given in the game. Powell made a similar hit on McCaw the following year. A penalty was given but there was no citing. The 'clearout' that Jake Ball has been cited for (but may or may not lead to a ban). There was a couple others but I can't remember them all right now. You didn't answer my question either.

But the ones which were cited were, by definition, deemed to be Red Card offences. Otherwise they would not have been given bans.

The offences which were not cited must have been judged to not be severe enough to be punishable by a red card.

Just because some offences were not cited does not mean that the threshold is any thing other than a red card offence.

I don't see how that is difficult to understand.

If you are saying that the disciplinary process is inconsistent then I will agree with you.

On the "Jake Ball" incident, I have only seen a very short clip but I did not see any attempt to bind to another Scarlet player and therefore the clearout was illegal and dangerous and warranted a citing. Whether the disciplinary panel decide that it was the same as the charge of Bakkies Botha in the Lions tour or that it was legal is up to them.

A player was seriously injured in the incident and while I feel that that in itself is not a reason to cite I think it is a good reason for that kind of challenge continuing to be regarded as illegal.

maestegmafia wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Whilst I agree with you that the disciplinary process globally is inconsistent and flawed, it still doesn't mean the incidents in this game were worthy of citings.

Then surely that doesn't mean that you are correct to say that the citing commissioner is correct in his decision if his institution is inconsistent and flawed?

You give two scenarios that contradict each other. A correct decision cant be made by an organisational body that is in effect invariably wrong in their decisions.

Just because globally there are inconsistencies in the disciplinary process it clearly does not mean that a particularly disciplinary body cannot make correct decisions maesteg. You are clearly just looking for an argument rather than a debate so I am going to leave that one there.

Mrs P , perhaps I was wrong to call you out. I understand but, I'm highlighting identical offences which have and have not been cited. I think it proves that there should have been a few citings after the match I referred to in this post.

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.

I can't, and wasn't trying to comment on the incidents in the Wales v Samoa game as I only saw bits of the game and missed most of those incidents.
I was clarifying that the citing officer had to deem the incidents worthy of a red card to refer them to a disciplinary panel.

That does suggest that the citing officer for the game agrees with Ozzy that those incidents did not warrant red cards.

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.

Most folk that are objective do not see the Samoans as thugs and do not see the incidents complained of as worthy of a red card and thus no citing is possible or needed.

some of the comments made about the Samoans are verging on racist and distinctly unsavoury. Open your other eye.

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.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Whilst I agree with you that the disciplinary process globally is inconsistent and flawed, it still doesn't mean the incidents in this game were worthy of citings.

Then surely that doesn't mean that you are correct to say that the citing commissioner is correct in his decision if his institution is inconsistent and flawed?

You give two scenarios that contradict each other. A correct decision cant be made by an organisational body that is in effect invariably wrong in their decisions.

Just because globally there are inconsistencies in the disciplinary process it clearly does not mean that a particularly disciplinary body cannot make correct decisions maesteg. You are clearly just looking for an argument rather than a debate so I am going to leave that one there.

Hold your horses Ozzy....!!!

I disagree that the Samoan players should get away with the way they played. As many many posters, pundits, commentators, during the game and alike have all said there should have been far more reprimand for the way they were callously attacking welsh players with illegal tackles.

Why the citing commissioner didn't see those incidents as illegal is precisely to do with the inconsistency. You can not say that inconsistency is a problem in the judiciary of rugby and then say that in certain instances, when so many people agree that there was reason for citation, that in that instant the commissioner was right....!

Equally, if I can't say the commissioner was right, then you can't say he was wrong, as you have no more to base that on than i do in saying he was right. You are entitled to your opinion that they should have been cited, and I am entitled to mine that they shouldn't. Ultimately, it matters little. The only man whose opinion counts has decided that there was nothing to warrant a citing, and that's it.

there is no inconsistency here at all to people with open minds. the incidents were unsavoury and probably worth a yellow card. this means no citing as unless it should have been a red card then no citing is possible

You have had it repeatedly explained to you why no citings. - cos that is the rules.

Move on - forget it. You are wrong here and every person with an open mind understands this.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Equally, if I can't say the commissioner was right, then you can't say he was wrong, as you have no more to base that on than i do in saying he was right. You are entitled to your opinion that they should have been cited, and I am entitled to mine that they shouldn't. Ultimately, it matters little. The only man whose opinion counts has decided that there was nothing to warrant a citing, and that's it.

Thats a fair response and one I whole heartedly agree with.


PM'd you

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.

Right which is why i was kind of drawing parallels with certain peoples attitudes towards this as well.

A little balance and reason and willingness to listen and there might be a point. Instead its treated as a "lets bash this country and defend ours" topic full of morale outrage, hyperbole, exaggeration and aggressive posting.

Funny thing is if you accept the premise that the Samoans are "getting away with it" then you are also buying AWOP/Auklandlaurie/The New Zealand Heralds argument that the NH media coverage and citing commissions are targeting the All Blacks.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler 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.

Right which is why i was kind of drawing parallels with certain peoples attitudes towards this as well.

A little balance and reason and willingness to listen and there might be a point. Instead its treated as a "lets bash this country and defend ours" topic full of morale outrage, hyperbole, exaggeration and aggressive posting.

Funny thing is if you accept the premise that the Samoans are "getting away with it" then you are also buying AWOP/Auklandlaurie/The New Zealand Heralds argument that the NH media coverage and citing commissions are targeting the All Blacks.

I agree with PSW...

Like him we both wish our national teams could be good enough for long enough to feel we were being targeted. That said, the actions of Hore and Thompson give good reason for citings against the ABs. If Hansen had of condemned their acts rather than initially belittle them, molehills/mountains would not exist.

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler 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.

Right which is why i was kind of drawing parallels with certain peoples attitudes towards this as well.

A little balance and reason and willingness to listen and there might be a point. Instead its treated as a "lets bash this country and defend ours" topic full of morale outrage, hyperbole, exaggeration and aggressive posting.

Funny thing is if you accept the premise that the Samoans are "getting away with it" then you are also buying AWOP/Auklandlaurie/The New Zealand Heralds argument that the NH media coverage and citing commissions are targeting the All Blacks.

I agree with PSW...

Like him we both wish our national teams could be good enough for long enough to feel we were being targeted. That said, the actions of Hore and Thompson give good reason for citings against the ABs. If Hansen had of condemned their acts rather than initially belittle them, molehills/mountains would not exist.

Chris Rattue agrees with you Maes http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10850363

(actually I agree with him too for once. Which is somewhat worrying. Btw, if I ever start agreeing with Stephen Jones (the journo) can someone check me into the asylum)

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Chris Rattue agrees with you Maes http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10850363

(actually I agree with him too for once. Which is somewhat worrying. Btw, if I ever start agreeing with Stephen Jones (the journo) can someone check me into the asylum)

When there are so many good newspapers to read, websites and forums too, what place does an over priced versin of the sun have in this world...?

TJ wrote:Most folk that are objective do not see the Samoans as thugs and do not see the incidents complained of as worthy of a red card and thus no citing is possible or needed.

some of the comments made about the Samoans are verging on racist and distinctly unsavoury. Open your other eye.

Bit of a baffling/unjustified accusation to make against me. Right under your noses aswell mods, fancy having a word?

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.

Did I say you? No I did not. If the cap fits wear it however.

Several comments on this thread are verging on racist. That is negative stereotyping based on race.

TJ wrote:there is no inconsistency here at all to people with open minds. the incidents were unsavoury and probably worth a yellow card. this means no citing as unless it should have been a red card then no citing is possible

You have had it repeatedly explained to you why no citings. - cos that is the rules.

Move on - forget it. You are wrong here and every person with an open mind understands this.



Did I say you? No I did not. If the cap fits wear it however.

Several comments on this thread are verging on racist. That is negative stereotyping based on race.

Yes there is a lot of inconsistentcy here and it's unacceptable. I've provided you with stone cold evidence and facts that proves there should have been a citing or 3 in this game. We are not wrong. Thanks.

It seems like it was aimed at me. Apologies if it was not. Who is it aimed it? I can't see who is being racist so it's probably best not to mention the R word. Earlier in the thread I did see a generalisation 'PI players are dirty and always tackle high' but did my best to play it down.

I picked my words carefully - verging on the racist. the statement you pick is one such of quite a few on here. Its really rather unpleasant to see thus I pointed it out

Where have you provided stone cold evidence that there should have been a citing? You have given your opinion based on a lack of understanding of the laws of the game and from a very one sided viewpoint


Now for the umpteenth time

Only incidents worth a red card can be cited. None of these incidents were worth a red card so no citing is possible. all should have had yellow IMO.

the only person who counts is the citing commissioner who clearly understands the laws of the game better than you do. the officals are the sole arbiter of fact. they do not deem it worthy of a citiung so it is not. FACT.

TJ I'm not going to start going around in circles with you again like I and a few other posters did with you back on the Wales/Arg thread; just simply go to the top of page 2 and read onwards. It seems that you haven't read at all. I gave the examples. It's not much use saying "He did not cite, therefore nothing was worth citing." The other citing from this weekend also proves that statement to be incorrect. I hope the citing commisioners as well as the officials are reviewed. There should have been citings, but I am aware what is already done can not be undone.

Some comments have probably verged on racism. Let it be noted I don't think Samoans (or Kiwi's) are thugs. However my opinion on the thuggish actions of certain Samoan players, (and I single out Samoa as this thread is dedicated to a single game) is quite different. I hope said strikes, etc are just a one-off.

I have read the thread and you have not provided anything but your opinion. You still seem to refuse to accept that you can only cite things worthy of a red card. The only persons opinion that matters is the officials. It is quite consistent and inline with the laws of the game. None of the incidents were worthy of a red card.

Some comments have probably verged on racism. Let it be noted I don't think Samoans (or Kiwi's) are thugs. However my opinion on the thuggish actions of certain Samoan players, (and I single out Samoa as this thread is dedicated to a single game) is quite different. I hope said strikes, etc are just a one-off.

clarifies things nicely and takes it away from the verging on the racist. Thank you.

TJ I've highlighted inconsistency and gave examples. Do you think what Jake Ball did to Niall Ronan, what Bakkies Botha did to Adam Jones are worthy of a citing? Did you think Carters high tackle on Martin Roberts was worthy of a citing? All three were cited with no red card or yellow card being issued. There were identical incidents handed out to Hibbard, Owens, Biggar and maybe Halfpenny by a few Samoa players. It's just the citing commisioner in this game failed to act contrary to IRB regulation 10.4 (k), which states: “Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.”

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.

It doesn't matter if a card of any colour was or was not issued. The citing officer has to be convinced that a RED card SHOULD have been awarded for him to refer an incident to the disciplinary panel.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

Just heard that pillar of unbiased opinion, Jiffy's comments on the ruck clear out at the wekend.

"That's a fair play. It's a good clear out in the ruck."

How balanced do you think that is?

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.

MrsP wrote:

Just heard that pillar of unbiased opinion, Jiffy's comments on the ruck clear out at the wekend.

"That's a fair play. It's a good clear out in the ruck."

How balanced do you think that is?

I don't hear balanced and jiffy mentioned exclusively very often to be honest. Just so you know, I was watching the game and aware he was commentating and heard most/all of what he said.

No they are not identical - they involve different players in a different game in differnt circumstances

You are not being slated for your opinion. You are being challenged on presenting your opinion as fact and on your lack of understanding of what the citing process is