Bledisloe 2 - Wallabies vs All Blacks, Wellington, 27 August 2016

[bigmac]

To be fair, he could be a cocky bastard. He has earned the right I'd say.

Also surprised by the posts referring to him as a fat git, or variations on the theme, considering the rapidly expanding jowls and gut of Chieka.

Cheika does fitness drill with his squad on occassions. Doesn't seem to help him much.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

To be fair, he could be a cocky bastard. He has earned the right I'd say.

I'd be pretty cocky if I was coaching the All Blacks too.

 

[Quick Hands]

Cheika does fitness drill with his squad on occassions. Doesn't seem to help him much.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

He must eat a lot of pies between sessions.

 

[I like to watch]

.....Also surprised by the posts referring to him as a fat git, or variations on the theme, considering the rapidly expanding jowls and gut of Chieka.

I can still call your wife fat,whilst ignoring the love of my life has a muffin top, can't I?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Cheika does fitness drill with his squad on occassions. Doesn't seem to help him much.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

as does Skelton and it hasn't helped him too much

 

[FrankLind]

Here's some stats on AB penalties vs other sides

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/all-blacks/news/article.cfm?c_id=116&objectid=11702631

 

[Grant NZ]

Here's the other angle that must have cleared Franks

It should definitely have been cited, but that photo shows four fingers which are pretty clearly not in Douglas eyes - Franks' fingertips are on the cheek & temple area - so while you were being facetious, that image would actually help Franks defence as far as 'gouging', I reckon. Would still be liable for carelessly attacking the face, though.

 

[Grant NZ]

Just putting this out there. I love the angry swearing side Cheika. Why? It's honest and real. It's exactly what i was saying and yelling at the TV. I hope he keeps it up. It's Australian and i love it.

I dunno, if he's carrying on like that on the sidelines, how emotional is he in his interactions with the players. You don't want your coach to be a robot, but in general the more dispassionate analytical coaches seems to be more successful. Think Wayne Bennett or Hansen (who's not on Bennett's level at this stage) rather than Cheika style carrying on.

 

[Grant NZ]

I don't recall if BOD ever got cited for raking Henson's eyes, some phrase about glass houses comes to mind.

 

[teach]

Cheika does fitness drill with his squad on occassions. Doesn't seem to help him much.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

By the looks of it he is the pace setter.

 

[tragic]

I think this article says it all.
Can't really pass the Argentinian vice chairman of world rugby off as just another whingeing Aussie who needs to get over it.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/n...ng-for-alleged-eye-gouge-20160902-gr7a4w.html

 

[Grant NZ]

There is an issue in the lack of citing, sure, but that's a very different argument than bias in favour of NZ. Kepu got away with a bunch of high shots and a neck grab in the RWC final. Rougerie got away with an eye gouge in the one before that. The citing process is ludicrously inconsistent and always has been and Pichot has a point that it needs to be sorted out.

 

[mst]

I think this article says it all.
Can't really pass the Argentinian vice chairman of world rugby off as just another whingeing Aussie who needs to get over it.

I think there a lot of people who need to get over it!

I will preface this comment with - this is not a defence of the incident, only pointing out some facts.

There is also a significant difference in the incidents they are comparing. The incident at the RWC had two key elements that helped the citing; physical evidence, and player evidence. The incident was brought to the attention of World Rugby by the NZ team doctors medical report.

One element that was considered unreliable was the TV images. Also the referees did not see the incident.

So the stark difference is if you wanted to cite Franks, it would have been done minus the two key, and overriding factors that helped with the RWC incident, and rely on the elements that were deemed unreliable in the RWC incident.

So, getting to the point, Franks would have been cited on grounds that World Rugby had deemed as unreliable.


Report: http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/97598?lang=en

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Or at least not the narrative of certain posters...............

EDIT: Exhibit Z (at least): post # 1615, below.

Further, and at the risk of being deemed a one-eyed All Black supporter may I mention:

RWC Final 2011, McCaw fairly obviously gouged by Rougerie: no action taken by IRB
RWC Semi 1999, Randell fairly obviously bitten by a Frenchman, name escapes me for now: no action taken by IRB.

Big ups to Pichot IF he's actually going to do anything but talk about doing something but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[tragic]

I think there a lot of people who need to get over it!

I will preface this comment with - this is not a defence of the incident, only pointing out some facts.

There is also a significant difference in the incidents they are comparing. The incident at the RWC had two key elements that helped the citing; physical evidence, and player evidence. The incident was brought to the attention of World Rugby by the NZ team doctors medical report.

One element that was considered unreliable was the TV images. Also the referees did not see the incident.

So the stark difference is if you wanted to cite Franks, it would have been done minus the two key, and overriding factors that helped with the RWC incident, and rely on the elements that were deemed unreliable in the RWC incident.

So, getting to the point, Franks would have been cited on grounds that World Rugby had deemed as unreliable.


Report: http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/97598?lang=en

Ok got it.
So if the ref sees it and it's captured on tv then it's ok
But if the video evidence is inconclusive, and the ref didn't see it, but the player has a whinge then it deserves a citing.
All clear now.

 

[tragic]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

View attachment 8434

Or at least not the narrative of certain posters.....

EDIT: Exhibit Z (at least): post # 1615, below.

Dude stop being so precious and read all the rest of my posts on the issue.
I was being facetious in pointing out how much of a lottery the citing system is and how difficult it is for the average punter to follow.
As was Pichot
And as were you.
So we're all on the same page.

 

[mst]

Ok got it.
So if the ref sees it and it's captured on tv then it's ok
But if the video evidence is inconclusive, and the ref didn't see it, but the player has a whinge then it deserves a citing.
All clear now.

Close, but no. You need physical and player evidence to be able to establish an offence. Both were missing. TV (Video) and the referees really only corroborate the the other 2 elements.

Its not hard to follow, just poorly written (rules and difficult to deal with unless its obvious.

 

[tragic]

Close, but no. You need physical and player evidence to be able to establish an offence. Both were missing. TV (Video) and the referees really only corroborate the the other 2 elements.

Its not hard to follow, just poorly written (rules and difficult to deal with unless its obvious.

You're not concerned that I was being deliberately absurd but was in fact close to the mark?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Dude stop being so precious and read all the rest of my posts on the issue.
I was being facetious in pointing out how much of a lottery the citing system is and how difficult it is for the average punter to follow.
As was Pichot
And as were you.
So we're all on the same page.

Been a long week. Gotta get my facetiousometer recalibrated, obviously. Peace.

 

[mst]

You're not concerned that I was being deliberately absurd but was in fact close to the mark?

No; as your comments are a clear demonstration of how fine the margins are in respect of interpretation with this type of incident and how absurd the whole situation is!