• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Rugby World Cup 2023

Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
qwerty51 said:
No one reports bans as when they could've been but the end result.

Why do you keep using Moala's ban as a comparison, do you think it's wrong? Is it because he's a Pacific Islander? Labuschagne is white, had a clear mitigation ignored and was banned, you didn't bring that up or does it not fit the narrative of a prejudice against PI players.
Click to expand...
Except almost every story reporting on this clear lack of consistency has reported 10-weeks. So you’re already wrong on that.

Again, your denial that prejudice and bias exists only serves to keep perpetuating it. You deny it when it happens, you deny it when the victims of it tell you it happens and you deny it when it is an undeniable fact of our existence. I repeat, as long as it exists in our reality, it will exist in rugby
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
They reported it as 10 before any World Rugby release. Pita Ahki said 10 weeks on twitter and everyone jut reported as truth from his source.

So I'll ask again why you chose to outline a PI non-similar tackle but ignored a similar white player's tackle who received (imo) an unjust ban which is highly relevant to the Farrell case given mitigations.
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
That isn't a bias at all and frankly a whole legal/society issue. Same thing with the socioeconomal status of criminals greatly effecting their judgements.
 
stillmissit

stillmissit

Chilla Wilson (44)
Bullrush said:
Prejudice is not equal to racism. But saying it is more about the money only reinforces the prejudices and biases that exist because who has less money? The poorer Pacific Island teams, the tier two teams.

People here may think this whole prejudice and bias doesn't exist but plenty of people are pointing out how differently Moala has been punished compared to Farrell. Moala - a guy with a pretty clean record - got 10 weeks FFS. Farrell got NOTHING. This problem exists and part of the reason it doesn't get fixed is that people don't want to believe/admit that it exists. They refuse to believe the players and the individuals who are victims of it or admit it's a serious issue.





View attachment 17292
Click to expand...

Racism and prejudice are a part of human nature and have been since we were in the trees and had to fight off other groups for territory. You think a few smart ape/humans can overturn millions of years of adaptation. Ask yourself why we discriminate in so many ways? ie left v right.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Dctarget said:
how much can RFU, the richest union, pay for legal defense compared to other poorer unions.
Click to expand...

This I think is the key.

Legal outcomes are vastly different based on the expertise of the legal representation in literally every aspect of the legal and judicial system. It is fairly safe to assume that the richest nations are hiring far more credentialed silks than the PI nations and employing a larger budget to try and mitigate suspensions etc.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
qwerty51 said:
They reported it as 10 before any World Rugby release. Pita Ahki said 10 weeks on twitter and everyone jut reported as truth from his source.

So I'll ask again why you chose to outline a PI non-similar tackle but ignored a similar white player's tackle who received (imo) an unjust ban which is highly relevant to the Farrell case given mitigations.
Click to expand...
How or why doesn't matter. 10 weeks is how it was/is being reported in direct contradiction to your statement.

I'm not addressing the Labuschagne incident because
1. I haven't seen it and
2. because this isn't the first instance of Pacific Island players and/or teams being dealt with unfairly. There is a history of it.

Again, players and coaches and unions will tell you they have experienced it. Observers will tell you that there is, at a bare minimum, the appearance of some kind of prejudice. Our reality around us tells us that this exists. But you disbelieve those experiences or minimise them and think rugby is exempt from what happens in the rest of our reality.

It is your right to think and believe what you want.
qwerty51 said:
That isn't a bias at all and frankly a whole legal/society issue. Same thing with the socioeconomal status of criminals greatly effecting their judgements.
Click to expand...
Almost like.....a bias :rolleyes:
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
That's not a bias, I should've been more clear, I was directly referring to hiring of better lawyers, not a judge dishing out punishments for the same defence but I can see how that was confusing.
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Braveheart81 said:
This I think is the key.

Legal outcomes are vastly different based on the expertise of the legal representation in literally every aspect of the legal and judicial system. It is fairly safe to assume that the richest nations are hiring far more credentialed silks than the PI nations and employing a larger budget to try and mitigate suspensions etc.
Click to expand...
I always found it a little weird that they have silks rocking up to a 'judiciary' for a game.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
qwerty51 said:
Labuschagne is white, had a clear mitigation ignored and was banned, you didn't bring that up or does it not fit the narrative of a prejudice against PI players.
Click to expand...

You've claimed a couple of times that mitigation was ignored but you are wrong. From World Rugby's statement on their website:

"The Committee noted that the offence carries a mandatory mid-range sanction (six matches) and having considered the mitigating factors reduced the sanction by the maximum mitigation of 50 per cent.

*The player intends to apply to take part in the World Rugby Coaching Intervention Programme to substitute the final match of the sanction for a coaching intervention aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play."

So it will actually only be a 2 game suspension. Down from 6.
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Bullrush said:
Again, players and coaches and unions will tell you they have experienced it. Observers will tell you that there is, at a bare minimum, the appearance of some kind of prejudice. Our reality around us tells us that this exists. But you disbelieve those experiences or minimise them and think rugby is exempt from what happens in the rest of our reality.
Click to expand...
Almost certain you've written something on this site dismissing claims of bias of NZ referees towards their Super Rugby sides and referees in general to the All Blacks.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
qwerty51 said:
Almost certain you've written something on this site dismissing claims of bias of NZ referees towards their Super Rugby sides and referees in general to the All Blacks.
Click to expand...
OK....I'm not sure that I have but l do find that I have changed my mind on any number of things as I grow older.

I would say that the ABs get a bias when playing against Tier 2 teams. I also think that the perceived dominant team can often get a bias in certain calls. However, from what I've read in the past, the stats don't back-up the perception of a bias towards NZ who get penalised and carded at very similar, if not higher rates than everyone else.

To be clear though....given you've mentioned NZ teams and the ABs, you DO think bias exists? Except only in favour of NZ?
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
There's a very clear bias when NZ Super Rugby sides play Australian ones with regard to foul play, the most recent season just saw so many egregious acts by NZ players ignored when Australian ones are almost always picked up.

I've mentioned this before and look at when NZ players score tries how keen a referee is to award them even when there might be doubt compared to when Aus players score tries against NZ. It doesn't matter if the right result is achieved (try or no try) - the referees attitude to these tries immediately is clear. In fact, great example in the recent Bledisloes how every Aus try was so overscrutinised compared to NZ ones immediately awarded and required TMO intervention to correct calls.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
qwerty51 said:
There's a very clear bias when NZ Super Rugby sides play Australian ones with regard to foul play, the most recent season just saw so many egregious acts by NZ players ignored when Australian ones are almost always picked up.

I've mentioned this before and look at when NZ players score tries how keen a referee is to award them even when there might be doubt compared to when Aus players score tries against NZ. It doesn't matter if the right result is achieved (try or no try) - the referees attitude to these tries immediately is clear. In fact, great example in the recent Bledisloes how every Aus try was so overscrutinised compared to NZ ones immediately awarded and required TMO intervention to correct calls.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh....so it's only the Pacific Island nations whose claims of bias are bullshit?

Yeah OK....I think I've heard enough :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top