• 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 ENG (Twickenham): POOL A; 6am (AEDT) Sunday 4 October

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Well, it does if the aim of sanctioning these type of incidents is to eliminate dangerous play. I think the question is valid - why is use of the shoulder in one instance a lesser evil? The OP wasn't suggesting Hooper didn't deserve sanction. They're either fair dinkum about removing dangerous acts from the game or they're not. It is an inconsistency.
In this case the suggestion was burgess got off why didn't Hooper. That's the wrong question.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
In this case the suggestion was burgess got off why didn't Hooper. That's the wrong question.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

In fact the question asked by the OP was exactly the opposite. Hooper got suspended, why didn't Farrell (not Burgess)? The OP actually conceded Hooper deserved to get sanctioned.
Sorry to be a pedant, Sully!
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Simple.
Either,or.
Just not both.
Ever.


It's not like Farrell is the head coach.

I guess Lancaster should have decided to sack Andy Farrell if he wanted to pick Owen Farrell.

Gatland raved about how good Andy Farrell was on the Lions tour. Maybe Wales should hire him?

I personally don't see it as being that bad a situation. I think it is quite different from Farrell being head coach. At the end of the day Lancaster is responsible for both their positions within the team setup.
 

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
It's not like Farrell is the head coach.

I guess Lancaster should have decided to sack Andy Farrell if he wanted to pick Owen Farrell.

Gatland raved about how good Andy Farrell was on the Lions tour. Maybe Wales should hire him?

I personally don't see it as being that bad a situation. I think it is quite different from Farrell being head coach. At the end of the day Lancaster is responsible for both their positions within the team setup.
No thanks. Sean Edwards is a god
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Just saw this game for the first time with the English commentary. Even at the very end, they were trying to insist that the Wallabies scrum was just 'out-smarting' the English. In the two final dominant scrums, they implied that essentially Slipper should have been penalised but just used some tricks to get one over his opposite.

Unbelievable.
 

the plastic paddy

John Solomon (38)
Just saw this game for the first time with the English commentary. Even at the very end, they were trying to insist that the Wallabies scrum was just 'out-smarting' the English. In the two final dominant scrums, they implied that essentially Slipper should have been penalised but just used some tricks to get one over his opposite.

Unbelievable.
It just goes to show that, if someone tells you something often enough, even if all available evidence would draw you to a conclusion opposite to that which you are being told, you are still very likely to believe what you are told. The England scrum has been a weakness for a couple of years now.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Hooper was charged with an offense that carried a 2 week penalty (foul play contrary to Law 10.4(f) (playing an opponent without the ball) and that was reduced by 1 week.

Tuilagi was charged with an offense that carried an 8 week penalty (foul play contrary to Law 10.4(a) (striking with the knee) and had it reduced by 3 weeks.


I have no issue with each getting time - my issue is with the system.
A bit like the selection of a World 15 that is selected by the Northern Hemisphere and the amount of players that - really should not make the team.
Point in case with Burgess taking off someones head who wasn't even carrying the ball.

Possibly another case;

Was not Farrell's shoulder hit on Giteau similar? I'm not saying Hooper didn't deserve a suspension, just why not Farrell?
But Giteau was hit "without the ball"
Hooper's cleared someone out who was playing at the ball on the side of a ruck (infringing)




Thanks Seb can always relay on you for another example BTW how good is it having both Hooper and Poey on the park at once - we both get to see our world class player cause havoc
I agree consistency is woeful.

Cooper gets a yellow for a soft head high, Then Burgess does a similar or worse incident and gets nothing.
Douglas puts a hit on a player off the ball which I think was similar to Farrells but Farrell gets yellow carded.

I think they got it the wrong way around, Farrell should have got a penalty and Burgess should have got a yellow.
 

Forcefield

Ken Catchpole (46)
Just saw this game for the first time with the English commentary. Even at the very end, they were trying to insist that the Wallabies scrum was just 'out-smarting' the English. In the two final dominant scrums, they implied that essentially Slipper should have been penalised but just used some tricks to get one over his opposite.

Unbelievable.

Phil Kearns.
 

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
When young McMahon can pull off an 80 minute effort at this level will he be able to "fill (Hooper's) boots". Against Uruguay he was dynamic for the first 30 minutes ....

I'm biased but I reckon his physical stats would be the best of any Aus forward, and better than most backs.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
It's not like Farrell is the head coach.

I guess Lancaster should have decided to sack Andy Farrell if he wanted to pick Owen Farrell.

Gatland raved about how good Andy Farrell was on the Lions tour. Maybe Wales should hire him?

I personally don't see it as being that bad a situation. I think it is quite different from Farrell being head coach. At the end of the day Lancaster is responsible for both their positions within the team setup.
The very fact that Players have been reported as saying that Farrell senior has too much say in selections,and that Farrell is making sarcastic replies in the press,confirms that the head coach should have made a decision on which Farrell was most important to him.
You need your whole squad pulling in one direction,not some sniping behind your back about nepotism.
It's just debilitating, regardless of the accuracy of those claims.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
@FOXSportsNews: England assistants Andy Farrell & Graham Rowntree found guilty of illegal approach to match officials during #RWC2015 loss to @Wallabies


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

teach

Trevor Allan (34)
@FOXSportsNews: England assistants Andy Farrell & Graham Rowntree found guilty of illegal approach to match officials during #RWC2015 loss to @Wallabies


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Hope the slap with the wet bus ticket doesn't give them a paper cut. Banned from the dressing room. They must be terribly upset.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
It's a bit lame, but I guess there's not much they can do now! It would be interesting to know what would have happened if we had lost, or if England were still alive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
It's a bit lame, but I guess there's not much they can do now! It would be interesting to know what would have happened if we had lost, or if England were still alive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sanction not really important. 1) it didn't help 2) they're out. But hopefully it will wake up the irb to prevent it happening in future
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
The definition of being hit by a wet lettuce: banned from the sidelines when England play Uruguay in a dead rubber. iRB, fucking ridiculous; how about leaving them to do what they want this week and banning then from the next meaningful match. Any match, you pick one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top