SBW to miss first Bledisloe

First topic message reminder :

At one stage, it looked as if SBW would return earlier, as the NZRU argued some meaningless matches were part of his ban quota. You can't blame the NZRU for attempt into use World Rugby's rules to their best advantage but it does show that not all bans are necessarily equal.

As it turns out, World Rugby have ruled out some of the matches NZRU hoped would qualify:

At the judiciary hearing, the All Blacks claimed that Williams would play in pre-season for Counties Manukau against North Harbour, and in an inter-squad match involving a Counties B side.

While the Judicial Committee accepted that the game against North Harbour was meaningful, they were not satisfied that the inter-squad game on August 5 was set to "be a meaningful match" and would not "have had a meaningful playing consequence" for Williams, saying it was effectively "an internal club trial".

They then also rejected the All Blacks' "Game of three halves" against Counties and Taranaki, as it did not meet the World Rugby definition of a match, due to the introduction of a completely new team after halftime.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11896128

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'll eat my hat if an Irish player appeals against a ban and get cleared when they miss a game for Ballymena RFC. We all know that no other country in the world would get away with something so ludicrous.

The All Blacks have always acted as if they are above punishment. Its for the same for every citing or sanction they get. Its all one big accident where they usually try to paint themselves as the victim.

It defies belief therefore that Kiwi fans would whinge so fervently over something as innocuous as the SOB non incident.

The hypocrisy you display in that comment about SOB defies belief. You wouldn't have seen a single kiwi defending SBW when he shoulder charged Watson. We took that on the chin. Pity SOB sympathisers can't suck it up and take thier medicine. It's because some folk like a double standard.

So I take you believe Sam Cane should have red carded and banned in the NZ v Ireland game in Dublin for knocking out Henshaw and sending him to hospital?

Fekitoa wasn't even concussed. SOB didn't even swing his arm at him it was a very passive connection. Its really funny to hear Kiwis getting their knickers in a twist over something so innocuous and defend Sam Cane to the hilt.

No, I'm actually just highlighting your double standards

So ebop. You're talking about punishment for the result not the action again. And were wr coming back to clarify the last lions game? Is that what you meant?

ebop wrote:No, I'm actually just highlighting your double standards

Id rather be hit passively by someones wrist/forearm than a flying headbutt or shoulder charge. What SBW and Cane did was particularly dangerous, SOB by contrast didnt do anything particularly dangerous. If he actually swung his arm maybe the whinging would be justified but he didnt.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:No, I'm actually just highlighting your double standards

Id rather be hit passively by someones wrist/forearm than a flying headbutt or shoulder charge. What SBW and Cane did was particularly dangerous, SOB by contrast didnt do anything particularly dangerous. If he actually swung his arm maybe the whinging would be justified but he didnt.

See...you're making light of a swinging forearm that knocked a player out. The swinging arm was dangerous. Evidently so, because a player was knocked out. You are not taking it on the chin like Naholo.

7.5, a player is knocked out on the ground...you think, mmmm, how did that happen? You then look for the action that knocked the player out. 'That' is the action that should be punishable. No one from your side can admit the swinging arm and it's very telling. Especially given this delusion that NZ gets away with everything. 7.5, what are your thoughts on Vunipola's flying shoulder into Barrett's head? Didn't harm Barrett but it sure did look very dangerous. Did it need Barrett to get knocked out for it to be a red card?

So you do believe that the result is what should be judged. I disagree to be honest. And tbh I'd be surprised many people would see such an innocuous incident like sob here needing a ban.

As.for vunipola yellow was right for me and I wouldn't judge such incidents on the resulting injury or lack of.

SOB didnt swing his forearm. You are exaggerating. There was literally no wind back.

You guys are guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse kiwis of. It's ok, I'm not all indignant about it. It's just good to know we're in the same sandpit throwing the same sand in each other's faces.

I just disagree with you that any resulting injury should have an bearing on the judgment of a challenge.

I think only the voices in your head are saying that 7.5

You keep saying the innocuous play by sob should be punished as naholo ended up hurt. So yes that s what you're saying.

No I'm saying SOB swung his forearm into Naholo's chin. That is 'all' I'm saying. Read the above again and commit it to memory.

He didn't so I think you're scratching for an example that didn't happen.

Aw you removed your acknowledgment!

Think you're seeing things 7.5

You said I got it. Come now no need to lie.

As on the other thread

SOB Naholo - SOB cited- SOB cleared.

I can understand some frustration but the incident was explored in detail. Other than bringing in special offenses for daring to make contact with an AB you cannot ask for more.