Franks not cited

I do find it interesting that apparently Owen Franks has nothing to answer for? I can't think of another incident recently, where a player has clearly placed his hand on another's face and it's not been looked at. The ref was very close, so perhaps saw it different. From the angles the public saw, it certainly looked worthy of an investigation.

Innocent, nothing to investigate.

AB, nothing to investigate

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Innocent, nothing to investigate.

No. he is an all black. When do all blacks get cited? Every one for got about omunga on o driscoll? nothing happend their either.

Frak you World Rugby

majesticimperialman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Innocent, nothing to investigate.

No. he is an all black. When do all blacks get cited? Every one for got about omunga on o driscoll? nothing happend their either.

Was that in a Leinster V Munster game? O'Munga...

Hansen claims that film footage not seen on television is conclusive that Franks did no wrong. Fine, if it's that clear cut then show the footage - simple. Otherwise, suspicion that Sanzar chickened out of a tough decision will linger.

It's definitely possible for someone to have their hands near an opponent's face without gouging. I'm happy if citing officers are able to make that kind of judgement call. It's quite possible Kane Douglas later confirmed he wasn't gouged.

However, that's not the message we get sent. In other cases, we have been told that any contact near the eye area is deemed unacceptable, and then it just comes down to the gravity of the offence (i.e. length of the ban).

We get told the same about dangerous tackles, regardless of intention.

Very happy for disciplinary committees to be treated on a discretionary basis, even though there are bound to be inconsistencies. Unacceptable to be told some areas are not discretionary, only to find officials unilaterally deciding they are.

Just watched it. I cannot believe that wasn't cited. It looks worse than a dozen other situations where lengthy bans occurred. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SOmTJBiwfY

The ref was looking right at him and pointing to him so he must have seen that there was not too much in it or he completely bottled it, we may never know.

My opinion is that it warranted a citing at the least as it did not appear to be accidental, he was in full control of the situation and his hands did appear to come into contact with the eye area.

In my world when you put 2 and 2 together you get 4. not 7.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
In my world when you put 2 and 2 together you get 4. not 7.

In your world (NZ) you are treated differently to the rest of the rugby world, so i am sure you are shocked (SHOCKED) that others are calling attention to it.

What are your thoughts on this https://youtu.be/0BQK0OVJsS8

What number should that have added up to?

No, not shocked at all, in fact I would go so far as to say that its what we have grown to expect from certain sectors of the Rugby World, No other team comes under more scrutiny than the All Blacks. sometimes merited, but often for other reasons.

I also can say that I have looked at the footage that you requested, and it bears no resemblance or foundation of comparison to the incident that is the subject of this thread.

So Laurie, you seriously believe that Franks did nothing wrong and that incident did not warrant a further look?

eirebilly wrote:So Laurie, you seriously believe that Franks did nothing wrong and that incident did not warrant a further look?

Most definitely Billy, and I have several reasons for that opinion. whether I'm serious or frivolous is irrelevant

Its literally unbelievable the lack of self-knowledge that some NZ fans have. When you think you come under more scrutiny than other teams - something literally every other's country's fans disagrees with... well either we are all out to get ye, or maybe we have a point...

Or you are having a delicious wum. Either way, no point in continuing with you.

wolfball wrote:Its literally unbelievable the lack of self-knowledge that some NZ fans have. When you think you come under more scrutiny than other teams - something literally every other's country's fans disagrees with... well either we are all out to get ye, or maybe we have a point...

Or you are having a delicious wum. Either way, no point in continuing with you.  

A lot of things that are untrue are unbelievable, anyway have a good day Sir.

aucklandlaurie wrote:...No other team comes under more scrutiny than the All Blacks...

South African supporters would take issue with you there. Don't have anything to hand myself but guys like biltong have often rolled out stats showing how they get more heavily punished for infringements than the opposition. A legacy of being seen as an "uncompromising" team.

It's also true that referees tend to treat favourites better than underdogs. Pretty much every review done at all levels of the professional sport has demonstrated that trend. It's not a deliberate bias, but decisions tend to average out in favour of favourites. Since NZ are undeniably top dogs, and have been for some time, then that benefit accrues to you. It's an enviable position to be in.

Thats probably right RF, On the field South Africa have been on the wrong end of some shocking decisions, some involving New Zealand. (I darent even mention Bismark's sending off to Biltong that was insane from go to wo).

What I was eluding to above, to Wolfball was the  Rugby world in general post match as in the Rugby media, and its employed pundits who have this eagerness to see New Zealanders cited, not because they think the ABs have in fact half the time even offended but more because they hope the citing process might find something.

But in fairness I do not think the All blacks suffer any worse than any other international teams by the officials on the field.

Another point which I think has to come into consideration is how the captains relate to the referee in the first place, to grizzle at the referee about something that happened in last weeks game is either stupid or trying to slow the game down, and the referees in 2016 are now aware of such tactics.

Set aside any bias towards the AB's or not and ignore the colour of Franks' shirt. I still think that making contact with the eye area twice merits an investigation, if only to confirm no foul play. Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the citing process the way to do that. How can you come to the conclusion that Franks has nothing to answer for without a process?

SH rugby has always been up its own end in this regard.

For the integrity of the game WR need to sight the player concerned and evidence needs to be provided to enable a transparent judicial conclusion to be reached.

Not this cobbled together grubby nothing to see here bs.

As things stand you would be right to conclude that the AB's encourage and endorse cheating.

wolfball wrote:Its literally unbelievable the lack of self-knowledge that some NZ fans have. When you think you come under more scrutiny than other teams - something literally every other's country's fans disagrees with... well either we are all out to get ye, or maybe we have a point...

Or you are having a delicious wum. Either way, no point in continuing with you.  

OMG. Talk about hypocrisy. This from an Irish fan.

I don't think he gouged him, but he 'made contact with the eye area' - which should be a lengthy ban.

munkian wrote:I don't think he gouged him, but he 'made contact with the eye area' - which should be a lengthy ban.

Agree with this. I think a gouge would have been obvious, but he obviously made contact with the eye area. Why he felt the need to do that is anybody's guess. Maybe the intention was there, but decided not to as the ref was looking in his direction?

Maybe not a lengthy ban, but a ban of some length would have been justified. It's a poor decision and one that doesn't reflect well on Sanzaar. Maybe World Rugby will step in as they did with RFU?

Edit: World Rugby claim they are not able to take action:

"World Rugby confirmed on Monday they were not able to change Sanzaar's ruling not to cite Franks for the incident which occurred in the seventh minute of New Zealand's 29-9 win in Wellington on Saturday night."

LordDowlais wrote:

wolfball wrote:Its literally unbelievable the lack of self-knowledge that some NZ fans have. When you think you come under more scrutiny than other teams - something literally every other's country's fans disagrees with... well either we are all out to get ye, or maybe we have a point...

Or you are having a delicious wum. Either way, no point in continuing with you.  

OMG. Talk about hypocrisy. This from an Irish fan.

Leave it out, LD.

offload wrote:Set aside any bias towards the AB's or not and ignore the colour of Franks' shirt.  I still think that making contact with the eye area twice merits an investigation, if only to confirm no foul play.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the citing process the way to do that.  How can you come to the conclusion that Franks has nothing to answer for without a process?  

Which is what I always think. If there is enough evidence (and I believe there is from that video) there should be a citing. That doesn't mean insta-ban

To be honest I don't see much difference between that and Chris Ashtons earlier in the year, Ashton made contact with the eyeball but that's not needed for it to be foul play.

Munchkin wrote:

munkian wrote:I don't think he gouged him, but he 'made contact with the eye area' - which should be a lengthy ban.

Agree with this. I think a gouge would have been obvious, but he obviously made contact with the eye area. Why he felt the need to do that is anybody's guess. Maybe the intention was there, but decided not to as the ref was looking in his direction?

Maybe not a lengthy ban, but a ban of some length would have been justified. It's a poor decision and one that doesn't reflect well on Sanzaar. Maybe World Rugby will step in as they did with RFU?

Edit: World Rugby claim they are not able to take action:

"World Rugby confirmed on Monday they were not able to change Sanzaar's ruling not to cite Franks for the incident which occurred in the seventh minute of New Zealand's 29-9 win in Wellington on Saturday night."

Does it say why they can't? Think it was the 6Ns committe rather than RFU who messed up forMarler if thats what you were thinking?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

munkian wrote:I don't think he gouged him, but he 'made contact with the eye area' - which should be a lengthy ban.

Agree with this. I think a gouge would have been obvious, but he obviously made contact with the eye area. Why he felt the need to do that is anybody's guess. Maybe the intention was there, but decided not to as the ref was looking in his direction?

Maybe not a lengthy ban, but a ban of some length would have been justified. It's a poor decision and one that doesn't reflect well on Sanzaar. Maybe World Rugby will step in as they did with RFU?

Edit: World Rugby claim they are not able to take action:

"World Rugby confirmed on Monday they were not able to change Sanzaar's ruling not to cite Franks for the incident which occurred in the seventh minute of New Zealand's 29-9 win in Wellington on Saturday night."

Does it say why they can't? Think it was the 6Ns committe rather than RFU who messed up forMarler if thats what you were thinking?

No, I will dig around a bit and see if I can find any official statement.

You're right. My bad, it was the 6N's committee I meant.

Found it, just excuses that they don't jurisdiction and that its different to Marler as that was foul play and about the process...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Found it, just excuses that they don't jurisdiction and that its different to Marler as that was foul play and about the process...

Didn't find an official statement, but this:

"It would be up to Sanzaar to decide anything," a World Rugby spokesman said.

"We don't have jurisdiction over Rugby Championship. We can't intervene. The process is pretty clear in terms of who has jurisdiction there."

World Rugby have in the past stepped in to hand a player a suspension, with England prop Joe Marler banned for two matches and fined 20,000 pounds (NZ$36,000) in April for calling Welsh forward Samson Lee a "Gypsy boy".

An investigation was conducted by World Rugby after organisers of the Six Nations tournament did not hand out a punishment.

But World Rugby said that situation was not comparable to the incident involving Franks.

"That was a issue regarding the process being followed by Six Nations and that was a misconduct case, it wasn't a foul-play issue.

"The [situation] was very different in it was a process driven issue we had at the time."

WorldRugby

I'm not sure it's just excuses. Maybe that there is nothing they can do legally.

World Rugby can't be jumping in on every potential act of foul play that fans and pundits argue about post match. Nothing would ever get done.

Franks did nothing wrong. Precedent set and should be repeated at every maul going forward (it stops players getting their hands on the ball if they have to bring their hands up to protect their own head / not-facial area).

thebandwagonsociety wrote:World Rugby can't be jumping in on every potential act of foul play that fans and pundits argue about post match.  Nothing would ever get done.

Franks did nothing wrong. Precedent set and should be repeated at every maul going forward (it stops players getting their hands on the ball if they have to bring their hands up to protect their own head / not-facial area).

World Rugby don't jump into every potential act of foul play. The one they did jump into - Marler, something was done.

You say Franks did nothing wrong. Is that according to rugby law?

I don't understand your point about bringing hands up to protect the head. It appears that you're arguing against yourself, so I'm guessing I'm not reading it right  

LordDowlais wrote:

wolfball wrote:Its literally unbelievable the lack of self-knowledge that some NZ fans have. When you think you come under more scrutiny than other teams - something literally every other's country's fans disagrees with... well either we are all out to get ye, or maybe we have a point...

Or you are having a delicious wum. Either way, no point in continuing with you.  

OMG. Talk about hypocrisy. This from an Irish fan.

Go and crawl back under your rock LD, the anti-Irish crusade is tired to say the least. P.rick

thebandwagonsociety wrote:World Rugby can't be jumping in on every potential act of foul play that fans and pundits argue about post match.  Nothing would ever get done.

Franks did nothing wrong. Precedent set and should be repeated at every maul going forward (it stops players getting their hands on the ball if they have to bring their hands up to protect their own head / not-facial area).

Thats correct, they only need to step in when the credibility/integrity of the game is put at risk. Which will be the criteria used by the Australian RU complaining to World Rugby Re Hansen having meetings with the match officials prior to the game.

Munchkin wrote:"That was a issue regarding the process being followed by Six Nations and that was a misconduct case, it wasn't a foul-play issue.

"The [situation] was very different in it was a process driven issue we had at the time."

World Rugby stepped in during the 2013 Lions Tour when James Horwill was cleared after being cited. Horwill was again cleared, because it was evident World Rugby had no power to re litigate the case, only to ensure that the correct legal proceedings had been followed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-27/2013-lions-tour3a-irb-to-appeal-james-horwill-citing-clearance/4786426

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"That was a issue regarding the process being followed by Six Nations and that was a misconduct case, it wasn't a foul-play issue.

"The [situation] was very different in it was a process driven issue we had at the time."

World Rugby stepped in during the 2013 Lions Tour when James Horwill was cleared after being cited. Horwill was again cleared, because it was evident World Rugby had no power to re litigate the case, only to ensure that the correct legal proceedings had been followed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-27/2013-lions-tour3a-irb-to-appeal-james-horwill-citing-clearance/4786426

All that tells us is perhaps World Rugby have learned from their mistake. It isn't evidence of World Rugby jumping in after every foul committed. In fact, it appears World Rugby can't intervene in foul play issues.

Munchkin wrote:...It isn't evidence of World Rugby jumping in after every foul committed....

That was my point. World Rugby can intervene, but only on matters of process.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...It isn't evidence of World Rugby jumping in after every foul committed....

That was my point. World Rugby can intervene, but only on matters of process.

IRB jumped in an appealed in the Adam Thomson case, not on grounds of process but merely because they didn't like the decision.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...It isn't evidence of World Rugby jumping in after every foul committed....

That was my point. World Rugby can intervene, but only on matters of process.

IRB jumped in an appealed in the Adam Thomson case, not on grounds of  process but merely because they didn't like the decision.

They stated that it was a matter of process (in that the minimum sanction had not been applied) and the integrity of the game in that case.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...It isn't evidence of World Rugby jumping in after every foul committed....

That was my point. World Rugby can intervene, but only on matters of process.

Yes, I agree, although I would hope that there's something they can do to improve consistent application of the laws.

Gooseberry wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...It isn't evidence of World Rugby jumping in after every foul committed....

That was my point. World Rugby can intervene, but only on matters of process.

IRB jumped in an appealed in the Adam Thomson case, not on grounds of  process but merely because they didn't like the decision.

They stated that it was a matter of process (in that the minimum sanction had not been applied) and the integrity of the game in that case.

Minimum sanction not applied? he was suspended for one week....How can that be process?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...It isn't evidence of World Rugby jumping in after every foul committed....

That was my point. World Rugby can intervene, but only on matters of process.

IRB jumped in an appealed in the Adam Thomson case, not on grounds of  process but merely because they didn't like the decision.

They stated that it was a matter of process (in that the minimum sanction had not been applied) and the integrity of the game in that case.

 Minimum sanction not applied? he was suspended for one week....How can that be process?

Yeah exactly ... it wasnt following the process, hence why they said it wanst following the correct process and appealed it.

Brian O'Driscoll isnt happy.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11702047

He's spot on tbf. Also shows the Kiwi fan knows nothing about rugby with the comment at the bottom!

If the Franks incident had happened in the NH (by a NH player) last season it would have been a minimum 6 week ban. There were some crazy bans being handed out for innocuous stuff, so if this is the new benchmark then all well and good. New season starts tomorrow - so we shall see.

There,They`re,Their,for our resident Padant
It was plain from the First minute that the Wallabies,were out to rough up
the All Blacks.To instigate reprisals and win a Yellow Card Cheika in every
game bar one.
Matches Won the other side were down to 13 or 14 men,at every Scrum,
Lineout etc there were scuffles.
The Scrum was disgrace just as in the England games trying to con the
Ref for penalties etc.Poite was doing it by numbers or guesswork.
Neither the TMO or Officials saw evidence of gouging,and the player
concerned showed no sign`s of distress and just got on with the game.
The people who reviewd it ,had all angle views none of media had and
decided no case to answer.
Having said that hands anywhere near the face is a Yellow card offence.
Franks should have been cited for a Yellow Card offence and put in on
his record as the Argentinian was.

Pedant, not Padant.

LondonTiger wrote:...if this is the new benchmark then all well and good...

The Rugby Championship is a different competition. World Rugby has been shown up, because it appears they can't achieve consistency across their competitions. Perhaps European domestic rugby will be guided by this case, but it's just as likely they'll stick to the standards they set last season. After all, a similar event during the World Cup drew a ban, so the way Franks has been dealt with is really a complete outlier.

Kane Douglas has said he didn't feel gouged which, if true, means the correct rugby decision was probably reached. However, it's clear in other disciplinary cases that his views would be largely irrelevant.

NZ supporters are being fairly myopic if they think the uproar is only about this case in isolation, rather than how it appears in the context of similar cases around the world over the last twelve months.

emack2 wrote:...Franks should have been cited for a Yellow Card offence...

The citing officer refers a case if it is a potential red card offence, not yellow card.

Deliberate just waiting for you to bite RugbyFan that`s what I thought BUT read the Argentinians report.