Franks not cited

by offload Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:28 am

First topic message reminder :

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.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:00 pm

Judging on your normal standard I doubt it. But congrats on finding the emojees.

by **LondonTiger** Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:44 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
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.

Dan Cole provided a similar statement for the panel that banned Francis.

by goneagain Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:33 pm

As an AB fan, when watching the game live, I was very surprised to see Franks stay on the field. Certainly thought his hands made contact to the upper face area. Perhaps his fingers were curled up and his palm made contact with Douglas' nose ;-)

I'm not up on the rules and regulations as to which governing bodies can do what post-match, nor do I have any concretre recollection of previous similar incidents - whether the perpetrator was found guilty or innocent. But seem to recall with some certainty that similar looking incidents have drawn deeper investigation.

I agree with the majority of posters that some sort of review was warranted. I don't recall reading any comment from the ref that he saw it and thought it was OK.
Steve Hansen's comments regarding other views (presumably via TV) shouldn't be enough. Of course these other views could exonerate Franks, but that decision should be taken by the relevant investigating body.

The right decision may well have been reached (I am not entirely convinced it has), but the lack of transparency in not good for the integrity of game.

Douglas' brushing it off is irrelevant in my opinion.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:52 pm

Good to read Gregor Paul in the New Zealand Herald last year on Mariano Galarza being banned for gouging Brodie Retallick.

A finger in the eye is never an accident. Mariano Galarzo has got what he deserved - a nine-week ban that will see him miss the rest of the World Cup.

Argentina were fantastic at Wembley. He wasn't. Well, he was right up until the point it turned out he had stuck his fingers in Brodie Retallick's eye. A hand never accidentally strays towards the face. Players don't suddenly realise they are rummaging around in another's eye socket and it's all a big misunderstanding.

Retallick certainly appeared to think there was ill-intent at the time, so this decision may well have been right, and the Franks one right too.

However, if Paul really believes what he wrote last year, then he would be obliged to argue for a citing at least for Franks.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11518030

emack2 wrote:Deliberate just waiting for you to bite RugbyFan that`s what I thought BUT read the Argentinians report.

Sorry, emack, you said "cited as the Argentinian was", which I took to mean Galarza in the last World Cup. If you are talking about last weekend, then you must be talking about South African Teboho Mohoje, not an Argentinian.

He wasn't cited. As I said, you can't be cited for anything less than a red card offence. Instead, he received a citing commissioner warning.

If you think that's what Franks should have received then I wouldn't necessarily disagree. However, those warnings only last for the competition in which they are given, which can turn out to be weak sauce. Compared to the bans given to Francis and Chris Ashton last season, very weak indeed.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:47 am

Agustin Pichot says what most supporters are thinking.

"The process is wrong," he said. "It should have some guidelines from the game itself.

"In world rugby, in Sanzaar and in Six Nations, we need to find consistency because at the end of the day fans want that. They want to understand what's going on and at the moment nobody can. I'm not saying Franks should be punished or not. What I am saying is you need consistency."

On Wednesday Pichot fielded a call from Pumas lock Mariano Galarza, who was suspended for nine weeks after being found guilty of eye-gouging All Blacks lock Brodie Retallick during the team's opening match at last year's Rugby World Cup.

"I cannot explain to Galarza who was suspended for an offence on an All Black when he touched his face and the same case or worse last weekend doesn't even get cited. It's wrong," Pichot said.

"How do I explain to Galarza when he phoned me that he was left out of the World Cup from the start to the finish and another player in the same situation one year later doesn't even get cited.

"What do I tell him as an administrator of the game? I am completely embarrassed. He dreamed of playing in a World Cup and I can now not tell him that it was fair.

"What is fair? Not citing Franks, or giving a punishment to Galarza? Where do I draw a line?

"We are the ones that administrate the game and we need consistency. I'm not criticising the citing officer. I'm not criticising the player. I'm criticising the consistency.

"It's wrong for the players because at the end of the day it's a question of integrity and player welfare.

"The same with consistency of refereeing. We can get some calls wrong or right we are human beings and we always have to respect the referee, but we have to be consistent worldwide.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/new-zealand-rugby/agustin-pichot-sees-inconsistency-in-owen-franks-nonciting-for-alleged-eye-gouge-20160902-gr7a4w.html

by Taylorman Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:20 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
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.

I see that clown Jones has now weighed in on it.

So here are the facts:

-The referee at the time was looking directly at it and chose not to penalise or card it.
-Kane Douglas has come out and confirmed he wasn't eye gouged
-Owen Franks has denied eye gouging.
-The video is not 100% conclusive that eye gouging took place, nor is there evidence of it...for that you can watch Rougeries on McCaw minutes before the end of the final and the finger marks across the eye area the next day.
-The Wallaby camp chose not to report it and there was no official report of the incident.

Myopic? Or simply blind, dumb and deaf rugby fan? And care to name all those events for us 'myopic' ones?

Those most closest to the event, including one each from both sides and the neutral arbitrator completely deny any eye gouging, yet spectators like the ever envious BOD and Stephen Jones, who happened to be the two MOST affected by the All Black presence from the north, choose this occasion to make a point.

Might be myopic but please pick one with more...or any...substance at least. Meanwhile we brush aside the Aus yellow for foul play, the attempted eye gouge, the boot throwing to the sideline as mere incidents typical of test match rugby.

So sorry BOD... Sorry you're still crying into your soup over the treatment you received but given you're unprecedented failure to forgive and forget and move on, I see it now as doing your career a favour...the 14 tests losses out of 14 to the ALL BLACKS...would now be 18. Stop embarrassing yourself boyo.

And Jones? Do everyone a favour and give up, or better yet, Retire, the envy is dripping all the way down here.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:30 am

For a start yes we're not talking eye gouging but contact with the eyes and consistency with rulings. Should have been dealt with.

by Taylorman Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:50 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:For a start yes we're not talking eye gouging but contact with the eyes and consistency with rulings. Should have been dealt with.

Yes that a fair point though I don't think Jones and BODs laboured points had anything to do with consistency of rulings across the board more than yet another lame attempt to get a dig in. If you watch the ref you can't get a better seat in the house on it so by his actions it must be assumed he did rule on it.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:21 am

Taylorman wrote:...Yes that a fair point though I don't think Jones and BODs laboured points had anything to do with consistency of rulings across the board...

Consistency is exactly the point made by both.

It's astonishing how few NZ supporters seem to understand this central complaint - even when spelt out in the clearest of language by Augustin Pichot.

If you say you do understand that complaint, Taylorman, why on earth would you resent someone like BOD pointing it out?

Keith Quinn recognizes that a lot of NZ supporters are demonstrating some odd priorities.

AB fans seem to show more concern at NickPhipps throwing Fekitoa's boot away than alleged eye-gouge by OwenFranks on KaneDouglas. Strange?

https://twitter.com/KeithQuinn88/status/770241895914057728

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:26 am

Yes and for me he got it wrong. Just badly handled and even with past history BOD is right. Haven't read Jones' piece yet. It should be these types of hands to faces are fine if innocuous or a no no. At the moment from this incident and a fair few last year which received bans the consistency is lacking. Another job for WR.

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:42 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes and for me he got it wrong. Just badly handled and even with past history BOD is right. Haven't read Jones' piece yet. It should be these types of hands to faces are fine if innocuous or a no no. At the moment from this incident and a fair few last year which received bans the consistency is lacking. Another job for WR.

The moment BOD gets involved you know that hes running on his emotive anti New Zealand campaign, and when his running mate is Stephen Jones then it somewhat confirms it. he has no integrity on the subject however he is entitled to have an opinion (even I am).

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:45 am

But he's spot on. The emotion seems mainly to be coming from the other side.

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:47 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Taylorman wrote:...Yes that a fair point though I don't think Jones and BODs laboured points had anything to do with consistency of rulings across the board...
Consistency is exactly the point made by both.

It's astonishing how few NZ supporters seem to understand this central complaint - even when spelt out in the clearest of language by Augustin Pichot.

If you say you do understand that complaint, Taylorman, why on earth would you resent someone like BOD pointing it out?

Keith Quinn recognizes that a lot of NZ supporters are demonstrating some odd priorities.

AB fans seem to show more concern at NickPhipps throwing Fekitoa's boot away than alleged eye-gouge by OwenFranks on KaneDouglas. Strange?
https://twitter.com/KeithQuinn88/status/770241895914057728

RF, Just because we dont agree doesnt mean we dont understand.

by Taylorman Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:09 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Taylorman wrote:...Yes that a fair point though I don't think Jones and BODs laboured points had anything to do with consistency of rulings across the board...
Consistency is exactly the point made by both.

It's astonishing how few NZ supporters seem to understand this central complaint - even when spelt out in the clearest of language by Augustin Pichot.

If you say you do understand that complaint, Taylorman, why on earth would you resent someone like BOD pointing it out?

Keith Quinn recognizes that a lot of NZ supporters are demonstrating some odd priorities.

AB fans seem to show more concern at NickPhipps throwing Fekitoa's boot away than alleged eye-gouge by OwenFranks on KaneDouglas. Strange?
https://twitter.com/KeithQuinn88/status/770241895914057728

Rubbish, not with those two. You don't see them spouting consistency with anything else. They're on an anti NZ campaign for life. Astonishing how you don't see that, even spelt out in the clearest of language. Both have a history of trying to but failing miserably to get one up on the ABs. Neither has a history on fairness within our game. Funny that. And of all the top NH players why BOD? Why the one with the biggest axe to grind?

You're actually preaching your own shortcoming, amusing that it is. We get it, you wish they weren't so damne!d good but hey...life's like that.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:12 am

Lets say they are both biased against NZ; brings forth the phrase even a stopped clock...

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:19 am

True, also means that for 23 Hours and 58 minutes they are wrong, not very strong ground.

by Taylorman Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:33 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
True, also means that for 23 Hours and 58 minutes they are wrong, not very strong ground.

He he, and I think in the case of BOD with his withdrawn tweet it was one of those more later minutes perhaps?

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:42 am

I'm a bit confused by you 2; do you think it was a trick of the eye and the hand didn't touch the face?

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:02 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm a bit confused by you 2; do you think it was a trick of the eye and the hand didn't touch the face?

You got it 7.5, and hence my original comment, which happened to be the first on this thread.

Mostly I was convinced by the reactions of both the referee and Douglas, who between them had the the best views of the incident than anyone else on the planet. and that includes both sides of Owen Franks hand.

Probably more trick of the camera than trick of the eye.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:07 am

If you think he didn't touch his face fair enough I suppose.Thought it was clear as day thoughh you do still sound as if you're talking gouging/damage/pain etc. Have to say I haven't seen a view which doesn't show contact yet.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:47 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:RF, Just because we dont agree doesnt mean we dont understand.

Are you saying The position of a lot of NZers is that there is no inconsistency? If true, then that's really puzzling.

I've said a couple of times in this thread that not citing Franks could well be a good rugby decision, so that's not my beef.

Here are the main three incidents which have brought up for comparison: Mariano Galarza, Chris Ashton and Tomas Francis. The first two are on YouTube, the third is in a GIF you can see via the Rugby Dump link. All got lengthy bans.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/03/4961/tomas-francis-only-penalised-but-then-cited-for-contact-with-dan-coles-eyes

Out of all four incidents, I'd say the most benign involved Tomas Francis.

It's consistency which is the beef. If BOD makes somehow makes your blood boil when he points that out, then try listening to Augustin Pichot of World Rugby and Michael Lynagh when they say exactly the same.

.

by Taylorman Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:45 pm

Yes that's fair enough RF, the beef with BOD is merely how he uses the incident, or lack of it to pursue his personal vendetta, part of which this time included having a go at the country itself. Anyway, it continues to reflect on him more than anyone else.

by emack2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:20 pm

This incident is indicative of trial by media,read the columns of some newspapers.New Zealand only win because there never penalised
according to the conspiracy theorists.
Stats published in NZ Herald show in fact Nz concede more penalties and
Yellow cards over several recent years than anyone else.
The McCaw "Cloak of invisibility"etc.the one he pinched from George Smith!!
Mc Caw supposedly offended prior to 2015 RWC final from a Media tweet
he was innocent too !!
The laws are there in Black and White and should be applied as such NOT
down to a Referees/TMO`s whims.
All you can ask for is the officials apply the rules equally to both sides
Poite did just that.
Consistency?Nigel Owens was going to let Ben Smith off with just a
penalty for an offence.Then Yellow carded him at TMO`s intervention
During Eng v OZ series a player commited the same offence Owens
AGAIN said "only a Penalty and over ruled the TMO giving just a Penalty.
Two Players leap for a High Ball,eyes on the Ball ,arms outstretched
they inevitably collide.
During the RWC and afterwards the resultant was Nothing,a Penalty,
a Yellow Card,a Red Card etc.consistency? laughing

BOD has been going on about it for 11 years.,Stephen Jones? the only
time he a has a good word for a NZ player it`s when he plays for England Doh

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:48 pm

So you agree he should be cited just for consistency, good.

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:48 pm

RF.
I agree with you, to me also the Thomas Francis was also the most benign, I would go so far as to say Wales were dealt a real bad blow, and I would respectfully suggest that Francis was the victim of attempts to achieve consistency.

I do have an issue with incidents like this being judged from the perspective of consistency first, simply because flawed decisions keep being repeated, hence we do have to look at the individual merits of each case first and foremost. Consistency is fine when it comes to the point of applying sanctions but lets just wait until we get up that point.

BOD went a lot further than arguing consistency he used it as an opportunity to launch an attack on New Zealand and New Zealanders, and as such his remarks were more of a distraction to what actually happened.

Pichot is Argentinas most influencial rugby person not playing the game, and he was placed in the invidious situation of having to try to explain to his young player the events and ban that were imposed. I can understand his stance when that event would have been so clear in his recent memory.

I am not fully aware of what Nick Farr-jones said but I do understand it was part of either a conversation/commentary and as such his comments have to be kept in context with that conversation /commentary.

I also understand Sean Fitzpatrick made a similar comment up in the UK, but again those comments can not be isolated from conversation at the time.

Further I agree with that the non citing of franks could be a blessing in disguise, eye gouging is probably the worst offence a player could commit on another player on a rugby field not only is the victim often in a defenceless position but a player could lose sight of an eye. therefore "the full force of the Law" should be reserved for those occasions.

If we are to adopt an any hands/fingers near the face or eyes goes to a citing, then that opens up a much bigger can of worms, suffice it to say, such a policy would have seen Jonah Lomu spend a lot of time sitting in grandstands.

After last weeks test Australia lodged a complaint with World Rugby on the grounds that Steve Hanson had met unilaterally with the referee prior to the game, we don't seem to be hearing much where that went.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:53 pm

But while bans have been handed out for hands near the eye area you see why it should have been cited even if you don't agree with ruling?

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:58 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:But while bans have been handed out for hands near the eye area you see why it should have been cited even if you don't agree with ruling?

7.5 I dont understand the question.

by emack2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:59 pm

I think it should be a one match suspension NOT 8 weeks for Gouging as it patently wasn't one.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:05 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:But while bans have been handed out for hands near the eye area you see why it should have been cited even if you don't agree with ruling?

7.5 I dont understand the question.

Previous bans were handed out with the reason given that hands/fingers were close to the eye area. Given that this should have been cited shouldn't it (ignoring your own thoughts on the rule and just going by what is)?

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:27 pm

Got yu:
Frivolous citings should not be the norm.

"Just going by what is". An example being, If a player fends off a tackler and his hands/fingers go near the eyes, then its absurd that a citing should follow, its a common occurence in most games, let alone being within the laws of the game. Rugby Fan put forward the notion that the non citing of Franks may be good for the game, I agree with that and not because I happen to be an All black supporter. but in this instance the merits of this case did not warrant a citing in the first place hence the issue of bans does not arise.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:34 pm

Yes and no. Some of the citings are tame but by the rules correct. I can agree that ideally for me the incident should have been a pen at worst but the rules don't agree with me, hence should have been cited.

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:44 pm

The rules dont often agree with me either. but its good to see the merits take priority for a change.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:49 pm

Can't agree its good to see rules ignored tbh and thats the issue here.

by aucklandlaurie Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:04 pm

To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report, and he more than anyone is obligated to not ignore the rules. he seemed pretty confident that he had full control and had the best view of the event, no one could ever accuse Poite of being shy when it comes to awarding penalties.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:55 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:..To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report...

That's another area of inconsistency. In Ashton's case, he was penalized at the time, and referee Jerome Garces specifically said: "Nothing clear and dangerous for me about the finger in the eyes". The citing officer decided otherwise, as did the disciplinary hearing. Craig Joubert and his TMO also had a good look at the Tomas Francis incident but were overruled by the citing officer and hearing.

A lot of good reasons to see the Franks verdict as a fair decision were not allowed to factor into other incidents. Dan Cole testified he wasn't gouged by Tomas Francis but that was ruled irrelevant. The message was that fingers near the eye is a no-no.

It's a view shared by the NZ Herald. I'll bring up again what they had to say about the Galarza incident:

A finger in the eye is never an accident. Mariano Galarzo has got what he deserved - a nine-week ban that will see him miss the rest of the World Cup.

Argentina were fantastic at Wembley. He wasn't. Well, he was right up until the point it turned out he had stuck his fingers in Brodie Retallick's eye. A hand never accidentally strays towards the face. Players don't suddenly realise they are rummaging around in another's eye socket and it's all a big misunderstanding.

I don't want to see bad decisions made just to stay consistent with other bad decisions but we're talking about a widely used interpretation suddenly being dropped. If the boundaries are being changed, then everyone involved with rugby needs to know how and why.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:32 am

Good point RF, and I did notice that when Steve Hanson was asked about it in the post match press conference he referred to, and I cant remember the exact words but it was either "other views" or "the views of others" being taken into account as to whether there would be a citing....which somewhat suggested to me that he knew or had heard something from Poite, he definitely didnt use the word "footage", I am guessing he knew something that us mere mortals werent aware of, and probably for transparency purposes alone we need to know and further there is no harm in us being aware of all that transpired.

The NZ Herald has many Rugby writers, and contributors and sometimes it reports what Rugby journalists around the World are saying on rugby subjects, below is a piece pirated from The Sunday Times.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11703584

by No 7&1/2 Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:26 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report, and he more than anyone is obligated to not ignore the rules. he seemed pretty confident that he had full control and had the best view of the event, no one could ever accuse Poite of being shy when it comes to awarding penalties.

We could say that about every citing then. You seem reluctant to accept the rules were broken.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:17 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Innocent, nothing to investigate.

All blacks always deny everything. Never heard an all black admit foul play.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:22 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report, and he more than anyone is obligated to not ignore the rules. he seemed pretty confident that he had full control and had the best view of the event, no one could ever accuse Poite of being shy when it comes to awarding penalties.

We could say that about every citing then. You seem reluctant to accept the rules were broken.

And thats why you do not know, and can not say that any rule was broken.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:25 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Innocent, nothing to investigate.

All blacks always deny everything. Never heard an all black admit foul play.

All All Blacks should be banned eh GG?

by No 7&1/2 Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:34 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report, and he more than anyone is obligated to not ignore the rules. he seemed pretty confident that he had full control and had the best view of the event, no one could ever accuse Poite of being shy when it comes to awarding penalties.

We could say that about every citing then. You seem reluctant to accept the rules were broken.

And thats why you do not know, and can not say that any rule was broken.

Yes I can. You can see his hand in his face.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:43 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report, and he more than anyone is obligated to not ignore the rules. he seemed pretty confident that he had full control and had the best view of the event, no one could ever accuse Poite of being shy when it comes to awarding penalties.

We could say that about every citing then. You seem reluctant to accept the rules were broken.

And thats why you do not know, and can not say that any rule was broken.

Yes I can. You can see his hand in his face.

If thats the case then he should be cited.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:44 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report, and he more than anyone is obligated to not ignore the rules. he seemed pretty confident that he had full control and had the best view of the event, no one could ever accuse Poite of being shy when it comes to awarding penalties.

We could say that about every citing then. You seem reluctant to accept the rules were broken.

And thats why you do not know, and can not say that any rule was broken.

Yes I can. You can see his hand in his face.

If thats the case then he should be cited.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:44 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Innocent, nothing to investigate.

All blacks always deny everything. Never heard an all black admit foul play.

All All Blacks should be banned eh GG?

No I think one of the AB's strengths is their discipline. However, it seems to me that such is the weight of expectation that is placed on good discipline ABs are afraid to ever admit that they intentionally did something dirty.

Joe Rocokoco is the only player I can think of who has and he was about to retire when he admitted foul play.

Its human nature to err on occasion so I'd respect them more if they were more honest about it.

by No 7&1/2 Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:46 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
To say that we would have to know what Poite said on the matter in his match report, and he more than anyone is obligated to not ignore the rules. he seemed pretty confident that he had full control and had the best view of the event, no one could ever accuse Poite of being shy when it comes to awarding penalties.

We could say that about every citing then. You seem reluctant to accept the rules were broken.

And thats why you do not know, and can not say that any rule was broken.

Yes I can. You can see his hand in his face.

If thats the case then he should be cited.

Exactly.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:49 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Innocent, nothing to investigate.

All blacks always deny everything. Never heard an all black admit foul play.

All All Blacks should be banned eh GG?

No I think one of the AB's strengths is their discipline. However, it seems to me that such is the weight of expectation that is placed on good discipline ABs are afraid to ever admit that they intentionally did something dirty.

Joe Rocokoco is the only player I can think of who has and he was about to retire when he admitted foul play.

Its human nature to err on occasion so I'd respect them more if they were more honest about it.

Dont worry about it GG you will never respect them.

by GunsGerms Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:54 pm

Ha, you should never talk to a Kiwi about rugby.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:57 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Ha, you should never talk to a Kiwi about rugby.

And thats coming from an expert.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:26 pm

Here's Franks speaking:

Media and rugby pundits have weighed in on the incident since, but Franks put the saga to bed on Sunday.

"It's a non-event really," Franks said in his first public comment on the incident, while he was visiting the Sports and Rugby Institute in Palmerston North. "I didn't eye-gouge him."

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/all-blacks-prop-owen-franks-denies-he-eyegouged-wallabies-forward-kane-douglas-20160904-gr8gdg.html

I feel sorry for Franks because the disciplinary system has let him down. It shouldn't be up to him to "put it to bed" as this article suggests he is trying to do. He can't do that, because the argument isn't just about what he did, but how it compares with what other players have done.

One of the reasons Michael Lynagh and Sean Fitzpatrick have agreed with Brian O'Driscoll on this matter, is because they follow rugby in Europe, and have seen how such incidents have been policed to date.

It's not just that Galarza, Ashton and Francis were dealt with harshly by the disciplinary procedures of three different competitions. It's also that there are no examples at all of anyone doing what Franks did and being exonerated.

by yappysnap Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:50 am

Even more bizarre RF, that the powers in charge deemed it so innocuous they didn't even investigate it. Incredibly sloppy handling of the situation, compounded by the video evidence, prior examples of various players banned and then the IRB wiping their hands of it.

Out of interest, have any Superrugby players been cited/banned for similar? I don't remember any but don't follow closely.

by Sponsored content