• 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.

RWC: AUS v WAL (Twickenham): POOL A; 2:45am (AEDT) Sunday 11 October

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tangawizi

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Just saw a Fox sports report about the Pocock knee incident, but clearly stating that 'no report has been made', or something to that effect.

Jeez you'd think they could refrain from undermining an Aussie team by presenting 'what-if' stories, surely, FFS!!?!?!??
Apparently not. Now they've posted it on their Fox Sports Rugby Facebook page.

Time to start hoping citing bloke decides nothing in it.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Just saw a Fox sports report about the Pocock knee incident, but clearly stating that 'no report has been made', or something to that effect.

Jeez you'd think they could refrain from undermining an Aussie team by presenting 'what-if' stories, surely, FFS!!?!?!??
You'd think wallabies fans wouldn't blab about it continuously all over one of the biggest rugby forums in the world. Or make a video of it.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
 

JJJ

Vay Wilson (31)
There's at least one guy who's decided his life calling is to try to get Pocock cited. Pretty much every comments section of every online rugby article I've read has him posting links to the 'incident'. Maybe he's an unemployed coal worker.

I'm betting that if Pocock's injury turns out to be sufficient to keep him out of the rest of the world cup the guy will drop his campaign pretty quickly.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
There's at least one guy who's decided his life calling is to try to get Pocock cited. Pretty much every comments section of every online rugby article I've read has him posting links to the 'incident'. Maybe he's an unemployed coal worker.

I'm betting that if Pocock's injury turns out to be sufficient to keep him out of the rest of the world cup the guy will drop his campaign pretty quickly.


That's a bit like the sad spectacle of the parent, friend or relative anonymously and endlessly trolling the Schoolboy threads, repetitively hyping up the achievements of their son, brother, nephew, schoolmate or acquaintance in the desperate hope that a selector will pick them for the the Representative team, albeit Club District or Zone, School Association, State or National team based on the number of positive references to said child that have been made in the Green and Gold Schoolboy Rugby forums.

While G&GR has the ability to get Joe Scrumming Straight, even that was a fair bit more than one person saturating one media channel.
 

Colin Windon

Herbert Moran (7)
I'm more worried about Pocock's calf than a trolls determination to highlight a miniscule incident.

Its hard to ponder why you would want to press such a negative point when you pin the Wallaby logo to your name.

Go Wallabies....I even saw a smattering of proudly worn gold jerseys and polo's out on Sunday around my local haunts.

Here's hoping the fun continues!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BDA

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
The Pocock "incident" would be nothing to talk about if the citing and judicial process wasn't such a lottery. We have discussed the issue from time to time and whilst some progress has been made, coming from a very low base, it is still random and arbitrary, for instance Hooper gets the 1 week suspension for charging into the ruck, and rightly so from the reading of the law, but on actual severity and risk it is harsh, but then Burgess in the same game gets a off field warning for actual forceful contact with the head/neck. The gross inconsistency and random nature of the judicial process leads to contempt for the system itself, indeed posters have long referred to the lottery but now even main stream commentators, both print and electronic also refer to it in this way. Just as in civilian life I hold the judicial process as a pillar of the game/society it is an essential part of Rugby and has to be reformed to achieve consistency and predictability (essential for understanding, transparency and hence respect). To do this I would be looking at a schedule of offences and prescribed punishments. Get the &^%^&!! lawyers out of the process, in both spheres they do nothing for its probity.

Let the troll, do his thing, discussion of the subject in the public sphere (properly moderated) is better in the long run, reasoned argument with facts tendered and supported by substance will prevail,
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
To do this I would be looking at a schedule of offences and prescribed punishments. Get the &^%^&!! lawyers out of the process, in both spheres they do nothing for its probity.
World Rugby Regulation 17, Appendix 1 sanctions is the document you are looking for.

The problem is the threshold (red card) is not interpreted consistently, especially between referees and the judiciary. The mitigating factors reductions make the process a farce (Hooper got a discount for good behaviour 2 months after getting suspended) and world Rugby multiplied all of this in the world cup by having 11 different citing commissioners and 10 different judicial officers with their own opinions



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
^^^
Here is the guidance from Regulation 17. As @Strewthcobber says the guidance is fairly clear cut. What is not clear cut is the interpretation of this guidance, compounded by the inconsistent and sometimes baffling application of mitigating and deterrent factors.

The various judiciaries in Rugbydom are generally guided by IRB regulation 17 in terms of illegal and foul play and/or misconduct. http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

It is possible to compare sentences and punishments handed out for different citings on the basis of the guidance in that document.

Extract from IRB Reg 17:
Judiciary Entry Point Based on Scale of Seriousness of the Player’s conduct, which constitutes the offending.
Law No.6.A.5, 10.4(k) Verbal Abuse of Match Officials,
Lower End 6 weeks, Mid Range 12 weeks, Top End 18+weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No.6.A.5, 10.4(k) Physical Abuse of Match Officials
Lower End 24 weeks, Mid Range 48 weeks, Top End 96+ weeks, Maximum Sanction Life

Law No.6.A.5, 10.4(k) Threatening Actions or Words at Match Officials
Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 24 weeks, Top End 48+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 260 weeks

Law No.10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 8+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(a) Striking another Player with the elbow
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks,Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(a) Striking with knee
Lower End 3 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 12+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(a) Striking with head
Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 12+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 104 weeks

Law No 10.4(b) Stamping on an Opponent
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(b) Trampling on an Opponent
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(c) Kicking an Opponent
Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 12+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(d) Tripping an Opponent with the foot/leg
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 4 weeks, Top End 7+weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including early or late and including the action known as the “stiff arm tackle”
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 6 weeks, Top End 10+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(f) Holding, pushing or obstructing an Opponent not holding the ball except in a scrum, ruck or maul
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 4 weeks, Top End 6+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(f) Dangerous charging or obstructing or grabbing of Opponent without the ball, including shouldering
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(g) Dangerous charging or obstructing or grabbing of Opponent with the ball, including shouldering
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(i) Causing a scrum, ruck or maul to collapse
Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 4 weeks, Top End 8+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(k) Testicle grabbing or twisting or squeezing
Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 18 weeks, Top End 24+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 208 weeks

Law No 10.4(k) Biting
Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 18 weeks, Top End 24+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 208 weeks

Law No 10.4(k) Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area
Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 18 weeks, Top End 24+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 156 weeks

Law No 10.4(k) Spitting at Players
Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 7 weeks, Top End 11+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks

Law No 10.4(k) Verbal abuse of Players based on Religion, Race, Colour, or National or Ethnic Origin or otherwise

Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 13+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Part of the problem is trying to reconcile between incidents being dealt with during a game and ones that are missed and cited afterwards.

There should be no difference as an incident should either be worthy of citing and potentially requiring a suspension or it shouldn't be.

If it is missed during the game it shouldn't mean it is dealt with more harshly afterwards to try and make up for it. That is like playing catch up football.
 

Benaud

Tom Lawton (22)
Who had the 50 dollar bet? It's getting close lol

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

That was Galumay and I.

It's been reported that he wasn't cited. I'm surprised how much attention it got though. Not sure how much you had to do with that!
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Whatever. That's why I'm posting it. Because I think it's a no brained and he will Be gone. So let's start talking about his replacement. But we shall wait to see if it gets cited.


Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk


The 36hours has passed and Pocock wasn't cited...
Sorry to break the news.
 

Shiggins

Steve Williams (59)
Lol. It would be interesting to know. I'm releaved.
6363f57ad6bfde80fcd5597ef9a6ebc2.jpg


Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk
 

Shiggins

Steve Williams (59)
It's hard for me to believe with the way they have been lately citing and banning people. I'm really releaved as I know how important pocock is to the campaign. I wouldn't count all our chickens yet though.

I've been genuinely worried about some of our players doing stupid things and I'm worried about someone getting a serious ban soon. Hooper is probably the main reason for this. He had been very close on a couple of occasions to getting a decent holiday.

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk
 

Joe Blow

Peter Sullivan (51)
Maybe we should just let the the powers that be worry about borderline calls for a citing eh? The first I heard of the incicident was here..... over and over and over. Then 24 hrs later it appears on FS and some NZ media.

Best just to let it be. Once it breaks on social media the citing commissioner will no doubt have a look.
 

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
Just saw a Fox sports report about the Pocock knee incident, but clearly stating that 'no report has been made', or something to that effect.

Jeez you'd think they could refrain from undermining an Aussie team by presenting 'what-if' stories, surely, FFS!!?!?!??
People are always searching for true instances of irony, Shiggins liking this post did it for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top