Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
So he got off lightly this time on the basis of a clean record even though he's been warned before? Hmm, seems like a poor system.
Round 13!!!!!, Crusaders v Waratahs
- Thread starter Hawko
- Start date
- Status
So he got off lightly this time on the basis of a clean record even though he's been warned before? Hmm, seems like a poor system.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
I can't get the WR (World Rugby) guidelines at the moment because their site is farked or something, but I know that the difference between "arm" and "elbow" strike is midrange 4 weeks versus midrange 6 weeks from another site.
Let's work off that and deduct 2 weeks for his clean record, early plea (always a fucking joke in my book) and "good character" - which is judged off......... well I don't fucking know, because how do you quantify that?
At the same time, World Rugby tells us the head is sacrosanct and this whole concussion thing is to look after players, but this citing contains "contact with the head".
FIIK
todd4
Jim Clark (26)
Never thought I would see or read that
It would have been far more entertaining listening to Kearns going off about it!
ACR
Bob Davidson (42)
I don't know how many weeks is normal for this. 4 sounds about right to me. I know super rugby throws up some ludicrous suspensions (normally for SA, sometimes AUS players).
That article quotes Stephen Jones, fella makes a living bashing NZ rugby. He's like the Skip Bayless of rugby. Was he moaning when a certain AB player was repeatedly done dirty in the northern hemisphere? One such instance by the Welsh, with zero penalty, zero citing. Seem to recall Dan Carter being suspended for a far weaker challenge the year before against the Welsh. Yet.. one thing is certain.. always complaining.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
Surely the fact that he's been warned before without sanction, as pointed out by KOB above, would besmirch his "good character" claim even if it does not officially dirty his record.
ACR
Bob Davidson (42)
Consult Barry Crump, he'll tell you what kind of bastard he is. Maybe a good bastard, maybe a tough bastard.. who knows.
They should call that warning a half, and give him 3 instead.
btw, didn't Dean Greyling get 2 weeks for his elbow to the great one's moosh. There you go.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
“Foul play review committee chairman Nigel Hampton said the strike merited a mid-range entry point of four weeks due to the dangerous contact with the opposing player's head. However, taking into account Moody's "excellent" judicial record, good character and early guilty plea, the suspension was reduced to two weeks.”
1. Hampton is a kiwi QC (Quade Cooper): so this incident was missed by 4 incompetent kiwi officials and ruled on by a 5th;
2. This wasn’t merely dangerous contact: this was offside interference with a defensive player, deliberately using an elbow to his jaw. It was not accidental or incidental contact with his head;
3. All of which would suggest that Hampton (who has been in practice since 1964 - so no doubt recalls Meads and Loe as great all blacks) well understood his real mission, naively summed up by Stuff:
“The suspension will see Moody miss matches against the Blues and Hurricanes but 29-year-old will return to face the Chiefs, making him available for All Blacks selection ahead of their test series against France one week later.“
1. Hampton is a kiwi QC (Quade Cooper): so this incident was missed by 4 incompetent kiwi officials and ruled on by a 5th;
2. This wasn’t merely dangerous contact: this was offside interference with a defensive player, deliberately using an elbow to his jaw. It was not accidental or incidental contact with his head;
3. All of which would suggest that Hampton (who has been in practice since 1964 - so no doubt recalls Meads and Loe as great all blacks) well understood his real mission, naively summed up by Stuff:
“The suspension will see Moody miss matches against the Blues and Hurricanes but 29-year-old will return to face the Chiefs, making him available for All Blacks selection ahead of their test series against France one week later.“
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Central to the amendments in 2017 is the formation of the Foul Play Review Committee. The committee will be comprised of a consistent panel of three members who in the first instance will review all incidents of red cards, Citing Commissioner referrals and misconduct, and make a determination based on the information before them. The committee will meet at a fixed time to be determined at the conclusion of each round and the infringing player will have the ability to accept the decision of the committee or have the right to be heard at a formal judicial hearing within the following 24 hours.
SANZAAR has appointed senior Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC (Quade Cooper) (New Zealand) to chair the committee and he will be assisted by former Super Rugby and international players, John Langford (Australia) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa).
In the determination of an incident and the handing down of any sanctions, the committee will now have the ability to exclude any regular season Super Rugby byes as part of a meaningful sanction. This is a significant change and will ensure all sanctions issued during Super Rugby are treated consistently across all teams.
Commenting on the new judicial process SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos said, “The new process is the result of the identification of certain challenges within the application of an effective and consistent judicial process. It has followed a comprehensive review of Super Rugby 2016 and a consultation process with the Four National Unions (ARU, NZR, SARU and UAR). The changes also follow World Rugby’s acceptance, following a Judicial Review Conference last year, that competition organisers be allowed to tailor judicial processes to suit the challenges associated within their competitions.”
“SANZAAR believes Super Rugby has unique challenges across six territories and 15 time zones and the enhanced Super Rugby judicial process will deliver a more streamlined and effective system for teams and a more consistent outcome for players and fans to identify with.”
For a summary flow chart of the SANZAAR Judiciary Process CLICK HERE
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
For mine Moody’s dog act is outweighed by the incompetence of the 4 officials in charge of the game and the process that followed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The stitch up gets even better.
Has NZ heard of the concept of a conflict of interest? Or that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done?
Has NZ heard of the concept of a conflict of interest? Or that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
O'Keefe is a fairly ordinary referee - always has been.
As I've remarked before, I'm constantly amazed that the nation which produces many of the best players and coaches in world rugby can't produce referees of anywhere near the same standard. I'd much rather have the South Africans, Poms, French referee than a Kiwi (Stuart Berry excepted)
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
If you really want a laugh, click on the link to the SANZAAR Judiciary Process flow chart. I thought I was in the middle of a Monty Python sketch.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Aren’t the arrows pointing in the wrong direction?
You’d think SANZAAR could have alternates so that the chairman was not a presumably lifelong resident of the province for whom the grub was playing.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
Looks like an overenthusiastic 7th grade assignment.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
For all the up in arms have just had a seen that player Socino playing for Newcastle in during the past season got the same,so seems that the standard, and probably if talking about Sanzaar keeping things the same didn't Munn only get a week for elbow to Retallics head a year or so back in a Bledisloe game?
Seems to be about what the sentence is for a first offence (obviously a little lighter if you Aussie)
Seems to be about what the sentence is for a first offence (obviously a little lighter if you Aussie
)
Froggy
John Solomon (38)
First of all, while I was extremely disappointed, going down by 2 points to the best team in Super rugby, when just one of Foley's goals could have won it, isn't a bad result. Yes, we should have won after being 29 points up, yes we lost our way for 30 minutes, yes we lacked discipline, but it was the best performance by an Australian team this year, and I suggest that if we'd played like that against the Blues and the Lions we would have won both games.
Much has been said about the refereeing, but I would like to raise an issue that hasn't been discussed here (that I've seen), really gets under my skin and could have had the biggest effect on the game. This is the matter of a ref, not really knowing what's going on, just awarding scrum penalties to whoever has established themselves as the stronger scrum whenever there is a collapse. The Saders were awarded a penalty try for the 3rd Tahs infringement which is fair BUT, the second collapse was clearly the Saders fault. Their THP quite clearly over-extended and went flat on his face, the ref was on the other side and the AR continued the torpor he had been in all match. That should be a penalty Tahs, so instead of the 3rd scrum and penalty try, it would have been a relieving penalty. So alters the entire match. All because the ref doesn't know what happened, the AR doesn't seem interested, Saders scrum has been good so the ref says, I'll award them the penalty, it's probably right. Just lazy!!
Much has been said about the refereeing, but I would like to raise an issue that hasn't been discussed here (that I've seen), really gets under my skin and could have had the biggest effect on the game. This is the matter of a ref, not really knowing what's going on, just awarding scrum penalties to whoever has established themselves as the stronger scrum whenever there is a collapse. The Saders were awarded a penalty try for the 3rd Tahs infringement which is fair BUT, the second collapse was clearly the Saders fault. Their THP quite clearly over-extended and went flat on his face, the ref was on the other side and the AR continued the torpor he had been in all match. That should be a penalty Tahs, so instead of the 3rd scrum and penalty try, it would have been a relieving penalty. So alters the entire match. All because the ref doesn't know what happened, the AR doesn't seem interested, Saders scrum has been good so the ref says, I'll award them the penalty, it's probably right. Just lazy!!
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
How much credit for the improved Tahs' performances should go to Simon Cron or the absence of Nathan Grey?
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Quite a bit, I think. Given the cattle Gibson shackled him with he has done miracles.
That said, the Tahs defending was the best they have been all year and Gibson's the defensive coach, so he does deserve some credit.
- Status