No cite on the bight/bite

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/39336621

Didn't one of the French players allege that North had bitten himself?

Just a really odd game!

Its just as well the other game kicked off right after or there'd be an Irishman on here accusing Hartley of doing it

Gooseberry wrote:Its just as well the other game kicked off right after or there'd be an Irishman on here accusing Hartley of doing it

Hartley left the England game after 55 mins and still managed to get to Paris before Barnes blew the final whistle.

Well this is farcical.

On the TV, you see North showing Barnes the bite mark and Barnes clearly saying to the TMO there is a bite mark, so I think it can be disputed someone bit him. Now as the TMO could find any clip I can see why Barnes said it would have to be referred by the citing officer, but they didn't look for many camera angle, considering that would have ended the game. But it is what it is.

But, what I find the most ridiculous, is the statement that he bit himself. Look at the TV images again and where North shows Barnes to where the bite mark is. How the hell could he bite himself there (above the elbow and the back of his arm). He would have had to take his dentures out to do that.

Now, maybe there are no camera angles to find the guilty party, and hence the citing officer cant take any action, but to say North bit himself beggars belief and simply diverts from the blatant cheat of replacing the prop when he was not injured, especially not an head injury. That was no difference to the Leicester blood gate scandal of years ago, and completely undermines the seriousness of real head injuries.

If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

Irrelevant... I was not questioning the result, and thought Barnes was bottling it slightly, as it became apparent he didn't want to settle the game on a penalty try decision. Now, should he have.. yes he should have IMO.

BUT, he also bottled the biting. Its obvious North was bitten, Barnes accepted he could see bite marks. Its also obvious from the position of the bites that North could NOT have bitten himself. So Barnes went to the TMO, they couldn't see who committed the offence. So Ok, you cant penalise the individual, which would have been a RED card (at least yellow). But he could have said, there has been an offence and awarded a penalty. Game over.

So either way, Barnes bottled it, in the end of the game, afraid to award a penalty to either team and seal the game on his decision. That is weak refereeing.

There was no point he could have given a penalty try...If we one everyone someone gave away a penalty 5 metres out there would be uproar!

And no you can't give a pen away if you can't see any infringement to the laws.

No9 wrote: That was no difference to the Leicester blood gate scandal of years ago, and completely undermines the seriousness of real head injuries.

Do you have a pret time job tweeting for Trump?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

If France weren't cheating-gnashers then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And Lee's YC was incorrect.

The RFU have had a press-conference this morning.  Hartley admits he did it.

Jesus, Goose looks such a fool now with his fake news blasphemy.  Throw the book at Dylan.  Another Lions tour missed due to his ongoing rabies issues.

SecretFly wrote:The RFU have had a press-conference this morning.  Hartley admits he did it.

Jesus, Goose looks such a fool now with his fake news blasphemy.  Throw the book at Dylan.  Another Lions tour missed due to his ongoing rabies issues.

No-one cares about this except the media

mikey_dragon wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

If France weren't cheating-gnashers then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And Lee's YC was incorrect.

That would be true if the infringements started after Slimani came back on but alas they did not, the only reason the game went on so long was because of Barnes' reluctance to award a penalty try.

No9 wrote:Well this is farcical.

On the TV, you see North showing Barnes the bite mark and Barnes clearly saying to the TMO there is a bite mark, so I think it can be disputed someone bit him. Now as the TMO could find any clip I can see why Barnes said it would have to be referred by the citing officer, but they didn't look for many camera angle, considering that would have ended the game. But it is what it is.

But, what I find the most ridiculous, is the statement that he bit himself. Look at the TV images again and where North shows Barnes to where the bite mark is. How the hell could he bite himself there (above the elbow and the back of his arm). He would have had to take his dentures out to do that.

Now, maybe there are no camera angles to find the guilty party, and hence the citing officer cant take any action, but to say North bit himself beggars belief and simply diverts from the blatant cheat of replacing the prop when he was not injured, especially not an head injury. That was no difference to the Leicester blood gate scandal of years ago, and completely undermines the seriousness of real head injuries.

The TMO said that they didn't have any other angles that could be looked at!

I've just tried to see if I could bite myself where North was pointing to and it's perfectly possible.

I'm getting some odd looks though.

Jaysus!!!!!

There was 'gamesmanship' galore, cloaks and daggers, lies and subterfuge. Amongst it all Barnes lost control and became the rabbit in the headlights. He tried his best to award Wales the win including the bite and the attempt at 'did the TMO say something??? No???' to reverse the penalty.

Was North bitten? Obviously. Ask Kanye and Kim.....

No9 wrote:Irrelevant... I was not questioning the result, and thought Barnes was bottling it slightly, as it became apparent he didn't want to settle the game on a penalty try decision. Now, should he have.. yes he should have IMO.

BUT, he also bottled the biting. Its obvious North was bitten, Barnes accepted he could see bite marks. Its also obvious from the position of the bites that North could NOT have bitten himself. So Barnes went to the TMO, they couldn't see who committed the offence. So Ok, you cant penalise the individual, which would have been a RED card (at least yellow). But he could have said, there has been an offence and awarded a penalty. Game over.

So either way, Barnes bottled it, in the end of the game, afraid to award a penalty to either team and seal the game on his decision. That is weak refereeing.

It was his the inside of his bicep, I don't know about you but I can easily get that into my mouth. While I find the premise ridiculous, I found the idea of President Trump ridiculous a few years ago too.

The one angle that was shown seemed to show Norths arm was way down the body, now it could be the TMO was looking in the wrong place but it seemed pretty difficult for Dulin to get his teeth near Norths arm at that point.

Cyril wrote:I've just tried to see if I could bite myself where North was pointing to and it's perfectly possible.

I'm getting some odd looks though.

...the intrigue increases; for isn't it true, or am I imagining it, that North often has an almost instinctive gesture where he raises his arms and tucks his head in there to kinda quickly sniff or snotter or whatever? I could be completely wrong but why is that idea in my head that I've often seen him do this during a game? (Coz I'm crazy? Could be )

Anyway, we all know how mannered Biggar gets with the shuffles and hair combing and shoulder twitching, but I don't think I'm mixing them up. If anyone can confirm that they've also noticed this trait in North then please call World Rugby and inform them. We must get tot the bottom of this conspiracy somehow. The fate of the World and North Korea depends on it.

I don't know what more Barnes could have done.

The doctor said Antonio had to come off. Barnes can't argue with the doctor and put a players health at risk.

Barnes also didn't see the bite. He referred it to the tmo and the tmo saw nothing either. You can't give what you can't see, because there is always a chance that North didn't himself, another Welsh player did it or he came into the game with it. Balance of probabilities and it was probably a French player, but you can't give a penalty on such circumstantial evidence.

The game wore on an extra 20 minutes because there was at least 15 minutes of faffing round with regards to these two incidents and also Samson Lee's sinbinning and the subsequent attempts to determine whether Francis could come back on. The yellow card was correct and the fourth official then let him down when trying to get a player back on.

The only thing he perhaps could have done differently was a second yellow or a penalty try for France, but with so much going on you could tell he didn't want to make the wrong decision and cost the game.

The major decisions he got right, or at least he did as much as he could to uphold the laws of the game.

...the intrigue increases; for isn't it true, or am I imagining it, that North often has an almost instinctive gesture where he raises his arms and tucks his head in there to kinda quickly sniff or snotter or whatever? I could be completely wrong but why is that idea in my head that I've often seen him do this during a game? (Coz I'm crazy? Could be Wink )

Could have been a "dab" gone wrong? Can anyone confirm whether North attempted to dab at any point, possibly after an individual or team success?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

If France weren't cheating-gnashers then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And Lee's YC was incorrect.

That would be true if the infringements started after Slimani came back on but alas they did not, the only reason the game went on so long was because of Barnes' reluctance to award a penalty try.

We infringed more after Slimani came cheating back on I thought. You don't exactly come across as a rugby expert so if you've somehow decided that Wales infringed 100 times in that last 20 minutes then that's your anti-welsh bias confirmed (again).

Why are people giving credence to the theory that North bit himself

Ridiculous notwithstanding he was wearing a mouth guard.

Scottrf wrote:Why are people giving credence to the theory that North bit himself

Ridiculous notwithstanding he was wearing a mouth guard.

So the French don't wear mouthguards too?

Scottrf wrote:Why are people giving credence to the theory that North bit himself

Ridiculous notwithstanding he was wearing a mouth guard.

Now we have it! All we have to do is find the player who didn't bring his mouthguard with him.

This serious 606 investigation now needs footage. All you Gif Footage specialists get the evidence here now!

SecretFly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Why are people giving credence to the theory that North bit himself

Ridiculous notwithstanding he was wearing a mouth guard.

Now we have it!  All we have to do is find the player who didn't bring his mouthguard with him.

Or the ref Maybe trying to lose his rep of Welsh bias.

SecretFly wrote:This serious 606 investigation now needs footage.  All you Gif Footage specialists get the evidence here now!

Or if there are any dentists about who can compare the bite mark to the teeth of the French team

Why are people giving credence to the theory that North bit himself Rolling Eyes

Ridiculous notwithstanding he was wearing a mouth guard.

Just to be clear, I don't think he did. But to use legal parlance, Barnes had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. There is doubt because he didn't see a French player do it, even if the alternate version of events sounds ridiculous.

The most hilarious thing about this is all the Ireland fans now backing Barnes.

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:This serious 606 investigation now needs footage.  All you Gif Footage specialists get the evidence here now!

Or if there are any dentists about who can compare the bite mark to the teeth of the French team

We'll need a neutral dentist. Maybe Barnes knows someone?

mikey_dragon wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:This serious 606 investigation now needs footage.  All you Gif Footage specialists get the evidence here now!

Or if there are any dentists about who can compare the bite mark to the teeth of the French team

We'll need a neutral dentist. Maybe Barnes knows someone?

There was one at the game but he wasnt allowed out of the technical area

Gooseberry wrote:The most hilarious thing about this is all the Ireland fans now backing Barnes.

???

Are you sure you are reading this thread the right way up, Goose?  

Now we need an eye-specialist in.  Place is getting crowded with white coats.

ps some would say long overdue!

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:The most hilarious thing about this is all the Ireland fans now backing Barnes.

???

Are you sure you are reading this thread the right way up, Goose?  

Now we need an eye-specialist in.  Place is getting crowded with white coats.

Get Sherylle Calder in.

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:The most hilarious thing about this is all the Ireland fans now backing Barnes.

???

Are you sure you are reading this thread the right way up, Goose?  

Now we need an eye-specialist in.  Place is getting crowded with white coats.

ps some would say long overdue!

I was thinking it was a proctologist that was required

Jesus! England have a vision awareness coach???

Money does grow on trees for some folks...

Who is our vision awareness coach, marty? It certainly isn't Joe, given he couldn't even see the right team to choose until the Leprechaun forced his hand.

No evidence of biting? Yoann Huget was involved in the tackle, that is evidence enough

SecretFly wrote:Who is our vision awareness coach, marty?  It certainly isn't Joe, given he couldn't even see the right team to choose until the Leprechaun forced his hand.

Its Andy Farrell, he keeps saying 'did you see what my boy just did?'

eirebilly wrote:No evidence of biting? Yoann Huget was involved in the tackle, that is evidence enough

Huget doesn't wear a gumshield. Case closed.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

I see so biting is justified in this circumstance is it?

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

I see so biting is justified in this circumstance is it?

If you can provide me with any evidence of who bit him then go ahead.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

If France weren't cheating-gnashers then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And Lee's YC was incorrect.

That would be true if the infringements started after Slimani came back on but alas they did not, the only reason the game went on so long was because of Barnes' reluctance to award a penalty try.

We infringed more after Slimani came cheating back on I thought. You don't exactly come across as a rugby expert so if you've somehow decided that Wales infringed 100 times in that last 20 minutes then that's your anti-welsh bias confirmed (again).

But then a Welsh rugby expert said that there were two occasions in which a penalty try could have been given.

Not a great expert then.

Gooseberry wrote:The most hilarious thing about this is all the Ireland fans now backing Barnes.

No, just no.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a great expert then.

Well, experts are two a penny, but he is an ex ref, and was called upon by the very biased Wales Online.

SecretFly wrote:Jesus!  England have a vision awareness coach???

Money does grow on trees for some folks...

Well, yes, but he only works on the one eye

Yup I've read it. And there's no instance where a penalty try should have been given. Repeated pens don't cut it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup I've read it. And there's no instance where a penalty try should have been given. Repeated pens don't cut it.

Who cares what you say? You're not an expert

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup I've read it. And there's no instance where a penalty try should have been given. Repeated pens don't cut it.

That depends on whether you think the infringements were the only thing stopping forward momentum.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you stopped infringing at the scrum and breakdown there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

I see so biting is justified in this circumstance is it?

If you can provide me with any evidence of who bit him then go ahead.

Thats not the point you were making since you inferred the bite was as a result of Welsh infringements which is disgusting

And unless you have had your head inserted somewhere you'd know, as did the ref, that there was a bite mark.

Are you in the self inflicted camp then?