Citings!

by RubyGuby Wed 14 Oct 2015, 8:58 am

Given the recent "inconsistencies" regarding citing's in this RWC are we on the verge of a seismic shift in our game that will cause constant disgruntlement and frustration in the future or will this eventually lead to a much "cleaner" game. At the moment I'm verging on the former and I would like to know who the commissioners are accountable to.

thumbsup

by rapidsnowman Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:02 am

question;

Does a retired citing commissioner become an ex-citing commissioner?

Run

by RubyGuby Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:12 am

rapidsnowman wrote:question;

Does a retired citing commissioner become an ex-citing commissioner?

Nice one rapid - that's what we're after a bit of humour on here to go with the discussions.

by TJ Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:15 am

In actual fact all the citings and retrospective punishments that I have looked at are completely in line with the laws of rugby and completely consistent ( aftert Tuilagis appeal)

The main issue here is peoples lack of understanding of the laws and how they are applied

It has already led to a cleaner game - you don't see people being cartwheeled thru the air after catching high balls with anything like the frequency we used to do. You don't see the number of tip tackles we used to do.

Its frustrating when one of your players appears to be on the wrong side of a citing - see Ross Ford ( he might well have grounds for appeal) but over all its a very good thing indeed

by RubyGuby Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:19 am

TJ wrote:In actual fact all the citings and retrospective punishments that I have looked at are completely in line with the laws of rugby and completely consistent ( aftert Tuilagis appeal)

The main issue here is peoples lack of understanding of the laws and how they are applied

Then that's a good thing as we all get to learn a bit more and understand the reasoning behind each decision - I like that. By the way TJ did they comment on why the Australian flankers knee to the players chest was deemed a caution. I just think as long as we all have clear explanations as to why the decision was made then that resolves a lot of anxiety and frustration for fans. If we all get some transparency then I'm sure it will help everyone

thumbsup

by Geordie Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:20 am

The citings and results are an absolute disgrace.

How anyone can give (initially) an 8 match ban to Tuilagi for what him, Lomu etc etc has been doing for decades is absolutely beyond me.

They need to be very careful or they will genuinely kill rugby and the game we know it!

by TJ Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:23 am

RubyGuby wrote:
TJ wrote:In actual fact all the citings and retrospective punishments that I have looked at are completely in line with the laws of rugby and completely consistent ( aftert Tuilagis appeal)

The main issue here is peoples lack of understanding of the laws and how they are applied

Then that's a good thing as we all get to learn a bit more and understand the reasoning behind each decision - I like that. By the way TJ did they comment on why the Australian flankers knee to the players chest was deemed a caution. I just think as long as we all have clear explanations as to why the decision was made then that resolves a lot of anxiety and frustration for fans. If we all get some transparency then I'm sure it will help everyone

Again I neither saw the incident or the judgement so I don't know. I agree more transparancy is a good thing

by Sin é Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:34 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:The citings and results are an absolute disgrace.

How anyone can give (initially) an 8 match ban to Tuilagi for what him, Lomu etc etc has been doing for decades is absolutely beyond me.

They need to be very careful or they will genuinely kill rugby and the game we know it!

Worth reading the disciplinary decisions to get the reasoning. Briefly on Tuilagi, they believed he deliberately lifted his knee (and showed a photo of how high his leg was off the ground).

Of course it didn't help that Tuilagi had previous either.

by Sin é Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:39 am

TJ wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:
TJ wrote:In actual fact all the citings and retrospective punishments that I have looked at are completely in line with the laws of rugby and completely consistent ( aftert Tuilagis appeal)

The main issue here is peoples lack of understanding of the laws and how they are applied

Then that's a good thing as we all get to learn a bit more and understand the reasoning behind each decision - I like that. By the way TJ did they comment on why the Australian flankers knee to the players chest was deemed a caution. I just think as long as we all have clear explanations as to why the decision was made then that resolves a lot of anxiety and frustration for fans. If we all get some transparency then I'm sure it will help everyone

Again I neither saw the incident or the judgement so I don't know. I agree more transparancy is a good thing

Full written decisions posted here. Scroll down for Tuilagi's. SOB & Co's deliberations should be posted there later today.

http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/judicial-decisions

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:43 am

How about some consistency in all this? JP Peterson tackle v Scotland was identical to that of J Gray and Ford ,albeit in different circumstances re game. This was thought to be not even worthy of a red and a retrospective yc given. This citing lot are a pathetic bunch of self-interested buffoons who seem to have little knowledge of rugby union. I fear that unless this is sorted World Rugby will drift into FIFA-like corruption land.

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:47 am

What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

The whole thing stinks.

by R!skysports Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:50 am

Knee to the chest = nothing

by TJ Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:09 am

radge - thats because risking the head / neck is rightly considerd more dangerous than the abdo

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:15 am

TJ wrote:radge - thats because risking the head / neck is rightly considerd more dangerous than the abdo

One was deliberate and one was accidental. Intent should be a factor in the sentance.

by **rodders** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:16 am

Seems consistent to me - the length of the ban is equal to:-

The entry level ban in games * the tier of the nation / IRB ranking position * the position of the player

Rounded to the neared whole number.

Simple.

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:21 am

rodders wrote:Seems consistent to me - the length of the ban is equal to:-

The entry level ban in games * the tier of the nation / IRB ranking position * the position of the player

Rounded to the neared whole number.

Simple.

What I don't get is Bosch (sp) was guilty of the same offence but only got a weeks ban.

This disciplinary proceeding has degenerated into an utter farce.

by TJ Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:24 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
TJ wrote:radge - thats because risking the head / neck is rightly considerd more dangerous than the abdo

One was deliberate and one was accidental. Intent should be a factor in the sentance.

That would need a change in the laws - and would end up with its own inconsistencies - ie a punch that misses attract more punishment than a neck roll that paralyses - and it would also mean the officials would have to try to judge intent rather than what happened ie subjective not objective decision making. Much more likely to lead to discrepancies.

by **RDW** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:49 am

The main issues I have with the citing process are:

- Why is there a QC doing it? A lawyer who has no top level rugby experience in my mind is not SQEP’d to make these decisions. At the very least there should be a panel made up of those looking at the laws and those able to comment from a rugby point of view

- Intent over outcome. I just can’t fathom how the latter is more important than the former. Take a player taking someone out in the air as an example – are we really saying that a player who is looking at the ball, jumps to get it, but doesn’t jump as high as the opposition leading to him tipping over and falling dangerously is more worthy of a ban than a player who deliberately takes the guy out in the air but he falls in a less dangerous manner? How does that make sense? How did O’Brien know that his punch wouldn’t lead to a serious injury? How did Pocock know his knee wouldn’t seriously injure? How did Hooper know that his shoulder charge to Mike Brown’s head wouldn’t cause damage? I’m not saying that intent should be punished more severely than outcome – as TJ said that could lead to similar controversies – I am saying both need to be taken into account in equal measure.

- Smaller punishments if it is dealt with on the pitch. It is not the player’s fault that the reffing team misses the incident, or gives the wrong card. If it has been retrospectively deemed to be a red card offence the ban should reflect such – it shouldn’t be reduced because they were already yellowed during the game.

- My overwhelming concern with the recent decisions is that deliberate acts of violence have been dealt with more leniently than accidents / normal play that have led to dangerous situations. What does that say to parents watching the game deciding whether to let their kids play?

by Sin é Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:51 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
rodders wrote:Seems consistent to me - the length of the ban is equal to:-

The entry level ban in games * the tier of the nation / IRB ranking position * the position of the player

Rounded to the neared whole number.

Simple.

What I don't get is Bosch (sp) was guilty of the same offence but only got a weeks ban.

This disciplinary proceeding has degenerated into an utter farce.

You need to read the full disciplinary hearing report to come to that conclusion. All should be available later today.

by screamingaddabs Wed 14 Oct 2015, 10:55 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:The main issues I have with the citing process are:

- Why is there a QC doing it? A lawyer who has no top level rugby experience in my mind is not SQEP’d to make these decisions. At the very least there should be a panel made up of those looking at the laws and those able to comment from a rugby point of view

- Intent over outcome. I just can’t fathom how the latter is more important than the former. Take a player taking someone out in the air as an example – are we really saying that a player who is looking at the ball, jumps to get it, but doesn’t jump as high as the opposition leading to him tipping over and falling dangerously is more worthy of a ban than a player who deliberately takes the guy out in the air but he falls in a less dangerous manner? How does that make sense? How did O’Brien know that his punch wouldn’t lead to a serious injury? How did Pocock know his knee wouldn’t seriously injure? How did Hooper know that his shoulder charge to Mike Brown’s head wouldn’t cause damage? I’m not saying that intent should be punished more severely than outcome – as TJ said that could lead to similar controversies – I am saying both need to be taken into account in equal measure.

- Smaller punishments if it is dealt with on the pitch. It is not the player’s fault that the reffing team misses the incident, or gives the wrong card. If it has been retrospectively deemed to be a red card offence the ban should reflect such – it shouldn’t be reduced because they were already yellowed during the game.

- My overwhelming concern with the recent decisions is that deliberate acts of violence have been dealt with more leniently than accidents / normal play that have led to dangerous situations. What does that say to parents watching the game deciding whether to let their kids play?

I agree,

If you get a yellow you miss 10 minutes of one game (and your team cannot replace you of course) but it can mean that you don't get a ban of 3 weeks that you may otherwise get! I think most players would rather get the yellow to be honest!

by SecretFly Wed 14 Oct 2015, 11:01 am

I picture players in panic trying to get to speak to the refs and begging them to get the TMO to check out their elbow into the stomach of another player.... "Please, sir. I think it looks like a yellow. I think you should look at it again, I think I should walk for ten...seriously"

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 11:09 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:
- My overwhelming concern with the recent decisions is that deliberate acts of violence have been dealt with more leniently than accidents / normal play that have led to dangerous situations. What does that say to parents watching the game deciding whether to let their kids play?

BOOM.

It seems really violent/intimidating/malicious acts seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt whilst clumsy accidents are punished harshly.

by RubyGuby Wed 14 Oct 2015, 11:10 am

SecretFly wrote:I picture players in panic trying to get to speak to the refs and begging them to get the TMO to check out their elbow into the stomach of another player.... "Please, sir. I think it looks like a yellow. I think you should look at it again, I think I should walk for ten...seriously"

I think you might have a point there Fly, I would take it further and suggest that following the national anthems players like Cudmore and Bakkies Botha might say to the ref "shall I pop off for the 10 mins now or do you want me to wait till we kick off ref?" laughing

by lostinwales Wed 14 Oct 2015, 11:16 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:
- My overwhelming concern with the recent decisions is that deliberate acts of violence have been dealt with more leniently than accidents / normal play that have led to dangerous situations. What does that say to parents watching the game deciding whether to let their kids play?

BOOM.

It seems really violent/intimidating/malicious acts seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt whilst clumsy accidents are punished harshly.

Agreed

by milkyboy Wed 14 Oct 2015, 11:49 am

I'm Completely agree with rdw. I understand why they are outlawing things that could cripple someone, and treating them harshly, but it seems inconsistent. Tom wood accidentally kicks Williams in the head... It's accidental nature was rightly taken into account... So they are factoring in intent... Sometimes

Players have a responsibility for other's players safety when it's reasonably within their control... But it's a contact sport, how far can you sanitise it? accidents will happen. If the current guidelines don't allow sensible application of punishment then they need changing. Intent is always worse than clumsiness. If you don't punish intent, then where is the incentive to change. Players will always be clumsy.

So we're clear. Generally the changes made have been for the better because player safety is paramount and dangerous tackles being outlawed is obviously good. But

- when you have onfield ref and tmo's thinking farrells tackle is worse than hooper's (which was premeditated assault essentially) because the guy Farrell tackled rolled on the floor afterwards ... And when a week before lydiate on wood is deemed ok... Then you have serious officiating discrepancies.

- when the citing commission thinks throwing and landing a punch is a 1 week ban. Well it's p*ss poor in my view. And that's before we debate the wider perspective of it being a major international match in the sports showcase tournament watched by millions including school kids.

by RubyGuby Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:06 pm

Maybe we just have to accept that for the time being this Citing stuff is in transition and until there becomes a more stable consensus to what is and isn't foul play we will all have to accept that there will be inconsistencies. I hate to be balanced and rational here as its just not my style

thumbsup

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:10 pm

RubyGuby wrote:Maybe we just have to accept that for the time being this Citing stuff is in transition and until there becomes a more stable consensus to what is and isn't foul play we will all have to accept that there will be inconsistencies. I hate to be balanced and rational here as its just not my style

I don't see how there can be inconsistencies if the letter of the law is applied. That's why we have QC there isn't it?

Is intent taken into account or not? Headscratch

by screamingaddabs Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:19 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:Maybe we just have to accept that for the time being this Citing stuff is in transition and until there becomes a more stable consensus to what is and isn't foul play we will all have to accept that there will be inconsistencies. I hate to be balanced and rational here as its just not my style

I don't see how there can be inconsistencies if the letter of the law is applied. That's why we have QC there isn't it?

Is intent taken into account or not?

Because the law is not perfect. The same way you get legal outrages in the courts.

I think we would do well to simplify it and apply human judgement. Instead of saying "man lands on head, ban for at least 3 weeks" or whatever, it should be "man lands on head, group of citing officials from neutral countries assess whether ban is required and how long for - just be sensible about it and give your reasons in your report"

We can then, over time, build up precedent so that consistency happens.

BTW I am not a lawyer and no doubt this idea can be shot to bits.

by **RDW** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:20 pm

screamingaddabs wrote:

BTW I am not a lawyer and no doubt this idea can be shot to bits.

I'm glad I'm not a lawyer if this is the world they have to live in - would drive me mental.

Citings! Bangin11

by Cyril Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:25 pm

The main issue with the citing process is that the offenders (even if they are found guilty and sanctioned) aren't punished at the time. For example, France should have been playing 14 men for about 75 minutes but now it's Argentina who are benefitting from the situation.

There's no easy solution for this as not everything can be spotted at the time but it's not particularly fair and encourages a 'win at all costs' mentality.

by milkyboy Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:25 pm

I agree on the transition point ruby. Lots of plans look great on paper and their limitations get shown up in practice. In some respects having a QC helps in that if they apply the letter of the law but common sense suggests the outcomes are either inconsistent or inappropriate then its the law/guidelines that need changing.

Then again we have some on here who think intent is more important than result and others who don't so you're not going to please everyone. I agree in many cases intent is hard to be sure about or prove. But in some it's pretty obvious. In the meantime just clarity and consistency is the best we can hope for. Reading the comments on here, we can;t even agree if we have that!

by milkyboy Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:26 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
screamingaddabs wrote:

BTW I am not a lawyer and no doubt this idea can be shot to bits.

I'm glad I'm not a lawyer if this is the world they have to live in - would drive me mental.

they control their frustrations by billing clients for vulgar amounts of money

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:29 pm

screamingaddabs wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:Maybe we just have to accept that for the time being this Citing stuff is in transition and until there becomes a more stable consensus to what is and isn't foul play we will all have to accept that there will be inconsistencies. I hate to be balanced and rational here as its just not my style

I don't see how there can be inconsistencies if the letter of the law is applied. That's why we have QC there isn't it?

Is intent taken into account or not?

Because the law is not perfect. The same way you get legal outrages in the courts.

I think we would do well to simplify it and apply human judgement. Instead of saying "man lands on head, ban for at least 3 weeks" or whatever, it should be "man lands on head, group of citing officials from neutral countries assess whether ban is required and how long for - just be sensible about it and give your reasons in your report"

We can then, over time, build up precedent so that consistency happens.

BTW I am not a lawyer and no doubt this idea can be shot to bits.

I'm not going to shoot anyone to bits since I'm trying to understand the rulings myself. Bosch dropped a Namibian on his head and only got a week though.

The reason Ford and Gray got 5 weeks was because they wanted to throw the book at them and reduce the chances of this happening again. They got 3 weeks due to good conduct and a good past record. Why didn't Bosch get 3 weeks for the same offense?

by R!skysports Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:32 pm

What I would worry about the Ford and Gray one is, I think in every game every single player could be cited and banned for 3 weeks - as that type of clear out is normal and if you watch any game you can find them

And now, every one MUST be cited

by R!skysports Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:37 pm

So it seems much better to knee someone in the chest off the ball (no ban) punch someone off the ball and without provocation (1 week), charge shoulder first into someones head (1 week) than clear someone out of a ruck so they end up rolling onto their shoulder (3 weeks for 2 players), even though that type of clear out happens 30 x a game

Great to be a small rugby nation....

by **RDW** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:40 pm

It is all Scotland's fault really - if we weren't so bad at rugby none of this will have ever happened!

by GLove39 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:44 pm

Just going to leave this here https://vine.co/v/eE6zmmtg3T6

by R!skysports Wed 14 Oct 2015, 12:55 pm

GLove39 wrote:Just going to leave this here https://vine.co/v/eE6zmmtg3T6

It would be funny if it was not so true

Ok it is funny

by **RDW** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 1:18 pm

madmaccas wrote:https://vine.co/v/eEJ1aJl1Hpa

by Seagultaf Wed 14 Oct 2015, 4:31 pm

Riskysports wrote:
GLove39 wrote:Just going to leave this here https://vine.co/v/eE6zmmtg3T6

It would be funny if it was not so true

Ok it is funny

Can't be true they dint have a different wheel to spin for small nations and the big ones!

by **Notch** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 4:54 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

I agree with you. It makes perfect sense and is entirely consistent when you consider that they are not judging intent but rather how dangerous the outcome is.

That is the central problem; ignoring what the intent is is kind of mad... when you are playing a game at a hundred miles an hour, and it's full-contact unfortunately these dangerous situations happen. Thats not to say there should not be responsibility for ensuring the safety of your opponent, but this strange ruling that intent is to be completely ignored leads to slightly distorted outcomes.

I think this whole Tier 2 vs Tier 1 thing on disciplinary issues is a complete red herring. The reason Tuilagi, Ross and Ford all got longer bans than O'Brien, Hooper and Pocock is that despite their actions being non-malicious they placed the other player in much more danger of serious injury, i.e. concussion or a neck injury. Had O'Brien struck the head or neck off the French lock he'd be gone for a very long time, longer than any player at the RWC so far. Also let's remember that while the 5-week ban for Tuilagi was undeniably harsh, but that has been acknowledged and rectified after Samoa's successful appeal. 2 weeks is much fairer.

But we have to bring intent back into the process. It sends the wrong message that we are soft on intentionally aggressive acts but will hang players over pure accidents. It is bad for the image of the game and it needs to reviewed and re-structured.

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 14 Oct 2015, 5:06 pm

Notch wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

I agree with you. It makes perfect sense and is entirely consistent when you consider that they are not judging intent but rather how dangerous the outcome is.

That is the central problem; ignoring what the intent is is kind of mad... when you are playing a game at a hundred miles an hour, and it's full-contact unfortunately these dangerous situations happen. Thats not to say there should not be responsibility for ensuring the safety of your opponent, but this strange ruling that intent is to be completely ignored leads to slightly distorted outcomes.

I think this whole Tier 2 vs Tier 1 thing on disciplinary issues is a complete red herring. The reason Tuilagi, Ross and Ford all got longer bans than O'Brien, Hooper and Pocock is that despite their actions being non-malicious they placed the other player in much more danger of serious injury, i.e. concussion or a neck injury. Had O'Brien struck the head or neck off the French lock he'd be gone for a very long time, longer than any player at the RWC so far. Also let's remember that while the 5-week ban for Tuilagi was undeniably harsh, but that has been acknowledged and rectified after Samoa's successful appeal. 2 weeks is much fairer.

But we have to bring intent back into the process. It sends the wrong message that we are soft on intentionally aggressive acts but will hang players over pure accidents. It is bad for the image of the game and it needs to reviewed and re-structured.

I don't buy the whole tier 1 and tier 2 incidents having different ban outcomes. That's just tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense.

However I agree entirely that deliberately aggressive stuff like knees and punches and stamps should be treated harsher than accidents.

by Seagultaf Wed 14 Oct 2015, 5:07 pm

Notch wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

I agree with you. It makes perfect sense and is entirely consistent when you consider that they are not judging intent but rather how dangerous the outcome is.

That is the central problem; ignoring what the intent is is kind of mad... when you are playing a game at a hundred miles an hour, and it's full-contact unfortunately these dangerous situations happen. Thats not to say there should not be responsibility for ensuring the safety of your opponent, but this strange ruling that intent is to be completely ignored leads to slightly distorted outcomes.

I think this whole Tier 2 vs Tier 1 thing on disciplinary issues is a complete red herring. The reason Tuilagi, Ross and Ford all got longer bans than O'Brien, Hooper and Pocock is that despite their actions being non-malicious they placed the other player in much more danger of serious injury, i.e. concussion or a neck injury. Had O'Brien struck the head or neck off the French lock he'd be gone for a very long time, longer than any player at the RWC so far. Also let's remember that while the 5-week ban for Tuilagi was undeniably harsh, but that has been acknowledged and rectified after Samoa's successful appeal. 2 weeks is much fairer.

But we have to bring intent back into the process. It sends the wrong message that we are soft on intentionally aggressive acts but will hang players over pure accidents. It is bad for the image of the game and it needs to reviewed and re-structured.

Your argument falls apart a bit when you look at the O'Brien and Hooper incidents, both illegal shots to the midriff, one with an open hand the other with a knee. How come one is a retrospective red (and rather short ban) and the other a retrospective yellow? Given the Tuilagi incident I would have expected the knee contact to be dealt with more seriously.

The factor being ignored and the one that may explain the apparent Tier 1 Tier 2 discrepancies is the quality of legal representation. Now this should not be a factor, justice should be equally available to the poor and rich, but we all know that's not the case.

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Wed 14 Oct 2015, 5:09 pm

So 2 acts of deliberate thuggery, where opponents were injured, go relatively unpunished while at most an act of clumsiness where no-one was injured get hammered. Feckin pathetic decision by a corrupt body.

by **Notch** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 5:10 pm

Riskysports wrote:Great to be a small rugby nation....

Ha, come again!? I thought you were Scottish?

Scotland are;

1) One of three founding members of the original IRFB of which World Rugby is a successor.
2) One of the eight "foundation unions" who each have an extra vote on the World Rugby Governing Council, hence holding the balance of power over the other unions. The Council makes all the major decisions in international rugby including selecting the venue for the RWC and making all the decisions on the games by-laws, regulations and the Laws of the Game.
3) One of the privileged group of Six Nations who operate a closed shop in European International Rugby and get preferential treatment regarding touring schedules.
4) One of ten Tier 1 nations who are being paid more than £7.5 million each out of the profits made by this World Cup, totalling more than double the total amount that has been invested in all Tier 2 rugby nations since the last World Cup.

So really- what would you know about being from a small rugby nation? I'm from one of the Gang of Eight (Ireland) that runs the game too but let's not pretend Scotland have less influence than the Irish or are in any way outside that ruling cabal. Scotland have been a major power off the field in rugby union since the game started.

There are teams which benefit from this closed-shop old boys approach to governing the world game and those who lose out. Scotland are by no stretch of the imagination in the latter category.

The reason for the distorted rulings is mainly the prioritisation of danger over intent. If a Samoan fan came on here and complained they were shafted by World Rugby I'd have some sympathy, definitely... but for Scottish fans to do so really takes the biscuit.

by R!skysports Wed 14 Oct 2015, 5:27 pm

The match referee Jaco Peyper submitted an email in which he said:
“I can confirm I indeed saw the incident live referred to in the citing complaint.
Samoa number 7 found himself in position competing for the ball with his head
below his hips already. The Scotland arriving players, Scotland 5 and 2 in an
attempt to remove the threat to possession as per normal and in the dynamics
lifted Samoa 7’s legs and he tumble over, however the player supported on his
hands through out.

After our internal performance review process I am satisfied that that I dealt with
the incident appropriately.”

by R!skysports Wed 14 Oct 2015, 5:32 pm

Notch wrote:
Riskysports wrote:Great to be a small rugby nation....

Ha, come again!? I thought you were Scottish?

Scotland are;

1) One of three founding members of the original IRFB of which World Rugby is a successor.
2) One of the eight "foundation unions" who each have an extra vote on the World Rugby Governing Council, hence holding the balance of power over the other unions. The Council makes all the major decisions in international rugby including selecting the venue for the RWC and making all the decisions on the games by-laws, regulations and the Laws of the Game.
3) One of the privileged group of Six Nations who operate a closed shop in European International Rugby and get preferential treatment regarding touring schedules.
4) One of ten Tier 1 nations who are being paid more than £7.5 million each out of the profits made by this World Cup, totalling more than double the total amount that has been invested in all Tier 2 rugby nations since the last World Cup.

So really- what would you know about being from a small rugby nation? I'm from one of the Gang of Eight (Ireland) that runs the game too but let's not pretend Scotland have less influence than the Irish or are in any way outside that ruling cabal. Scotland have been a major power off the field in rugby union since the game started.

There are teams which benefit from this closed-shop old boys approach to governing the world game and those who lose out. Scotland are by no stretch of the imagination in the latter category.

The reason for the distorted rulings is mainly the prioritisation of danger over intent. If a Samoan fan came on here and complained they were shafted by World Rugby I'd have some sympathy, definitely... but for Scottish fans to do so really takes the biscuit.

What are you on about?

We are continually shafted - and have been for years - we have no power any more - and continually get the short end of decisions

We got the worst scheduling this year - people forget that

I also agree that other countries are shafted and I will defend them

BUT Scotland (Due to us not have any real representation AND being poor for so long) have slipped into that group as well

Yes, we get more money - which if a benefit - and one I will not disagree with - but to think we have any power any more is unfortuantely not true (look who had the power over the mess of the HC - Scotland was just shunted around by the rest)

by Sin é Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:09 pm

Explanation of all decisions here:

http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/judicial-decisions

by mrsuperclear Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:20 pm

Riskysports wrote:
Notch wrote:
Riskysports wrote:Great to be a small rugby nation....

Ha, come again!? I thought you were Scottish?

Scotland are;

1) One of three founding members of the original IRFB of which World Rugby is a successor.
2) One of the eight "foundation unions" who each have an extra vote on the World Rugby Governing Council, hence holding the balance of power over the other unions. The Council makes all the major decisions in international rugby including selecting the venue for the RWC and making all the decisions on the games by-laws, regulations and the Laws of the Game.
3) One of the privileged group of Six Nations who operate a closed shop in European International Rugby and get preferential treatment regarding touring schedules.
4) One of ten Tier 1 nations who are being paid more than £7.5 million each out of the profits made by this World Cup, totalling more than double the total amount that has been invested in all Tier 2 rugby nations since the last World Cup.

So really- what would you know about being from a small rugby nation? I'm from one of the Gang of Eight (Ireland) that runs the game too but let's not pretend Scotland have less influence than the Irish or are in any way outside that ruling cabal. Scotland have been a major power off the field in rugby union since the game started.

There are teams which benefit from this closed-shop old boys approach to governing the world game and those who lose out. Scotland are by no stretch of the imagination in the latter category.

The reason for the distorted rulings is mainly the prioritisation of danger over intent. If a Samoan fan came on here and complained they were shafted by World Rugby I'd have some sympathy, definitely... but for Scottish fans to do so really takes the biscuit.

What are you on about?

We are continually shafted - and have been for years - we have no power any more - and continually get the short end of decisions

We got the worst scheduling this year - people forget that

I also agree that other countries are shafted and I will defend them

BUT Scotland (Due to us not have any real representation AND being poor for so long) have slipped into that group as well

Yes, we get more money - which if a benefit - and one I will not disagree with - but to think we have any power any more is unfortuantely not true (look who had the power over the mess of the HC - Scotland was just shunted around by the rest)

You think? If Japan had a few more days to prepare....

by **RDW** Wed 14 Oct 2015, 9:28 pm

Off topic, but Japan had the most rest days out of any world cup team.

World Rugby even quoted that as proof that the inequality in fixture scheduling is getting better!

Scotland had to play 3 games in 10 days.

by Sponsored content