Waratahs v Blues, Saturday 28 March, Round 7 2015

[formerflanker]

He should not have asked Peyper a question, and Peyper should not have answered it.

Therein lies the conundrum for SANZAR - if Cheika was to be sanctioned, so would Peyper. That's something they didn't want to do.

 

[cyclopath]

Therein lies the conundrum for SANZAR - if Cheika was to be sanctioned, so would Peyper. That's something they didn't want to do.

Possibly so.
My conjecture is that the exchange was reported by other officials - honest question, no aggro, answered simply. SANZAR realise the whole thing is a bit wrong, but the consensus from the involved parties and other officials is that nothing "bad" happened. They don't make it immediately public knowledge and now they have teeth marks on their arse.
Cheika should not have done it, neither should Peyper. I'm not sure either party should be aggressively sanctioned, but I understand why some (esp Aucklanders) think Cheika should. Funny none have picked on Peyper, who seems to have been just as remiss.

 

[qwerty51]

I have no doubt if the penalty count wasn't 9-1 in the 2nd and the Blues won we would've never heard of this whole thing. The fact that the penalty count was 8-1 to the Blues in the 1st half just means a square up due to variance was always likely in the 2nd.

 

[Grant NZ]

Well what jurisdiction do SANZAR have over Cheika as an international coach? It would be interesting one for sure. I mean if he got banned as the Tahs coach right now it's not such a big deal given he's leaving and they've announced Gibson as the replacement already. I assume he would be banned from TRC matches however but they couldn't do anything about non-SANZAR matches could they.

Seriously? The ARU is one of the SANZAR partners and there'd be some provision in the partnership that each party agrees to be bound by SANZAR judicial decisions.

If a player is suspended for actions in Super Rugby, do you reckon the ARU would just say "Nah, f'k you guys, we're gonna play him in the RWC".

 

[Grant NZ]

Possibly so.
My conjecture is that the exchange was reported by other officials - honest question, no aggro, answered simply. SANZAR realise the whole thing is a bit wrong, but the consensus from the involved parties and other officials is that nothing "bad" happened. They don't make it immediately public knowledge and now they have teeth marks on their arse.
Cheika should not have done it, neither should Peyper. I'm not sure either party should be aggressively sanctioned, but I understand why some (esp Aucklanders) think Cheika should. Funny none have picked on Peyper, who seems to have been just as remiss.

Peyper not having a history probably comes into that, too.

I don't think this is a particularly big deal and if it were to result in the 6 month suspended sentence kicking in, it'd be disproportionate* - especially with the RWC on the horizon. I don't doubt that also played some part in the decision (and the decision not to publicise the incident).

*six months for abusing a cameraman is also disproportionate, IMO.

 

[qwerty51]

Seriously? The ARU is one of the SANZAR partners and there'd be some provision in the partnership that each party agrees to be bound by SANZAR judicial decisions.

If a player is suspended for actions in Super Rugby, do you reckon the ARU would just say "Nah, f'k you guys, we're gonna play him in the RWC".

Could be the same but I know players bans are still under the directive of the IRB even though handed out by SANZAR. For instance after many complaints SANZAR wanted to change bans from weeks to matches but couldn't until the IRB do so too.

 

[Bullrush]

Possibly so.
My conjecture is that the exchange was reported by other officials - honest question, no aggro, answered simply. SANZAR realise the whole thing is a bit wrong, but the consensus from the involved parties and other officials is that nothing "bad" happened. They don't make it immediately public knowledge and now they have teeth marks on their arse.
Cheika should not have done it, neither should Peyper. I'm not sure either party should be aggressively sanctioned, but I understand why some (esp Aucklanders) think Cheika should. Funny none have picked on Peyper, who seems to have been just as remiss.

I have said twice that I can't believe that Peyper didn't know it was against the rules.

Peyper not having a history probably comes into that, too.

I don't think this is a particularly big deal and if it were to result in the 6 month suspended sentence kicking in, it'd be disproportionate* - especially with the RWC on the horizon. I don't doubt that also played some part in the decision (and the decision not to publicise the incident).

*six months for abusing a cameraman is also disproportionate, IMO.

It wasn't 6 months just for abusing a cameraman.

Nigel Hampton, QC (Quade Cooper), who heard the case last year, also said: "I do not regard Mr Cheika to be a first-time offender and it would be farcical to disregard other matters over the past nine years, including proven misconduct allegations from his time as a professional coach in Europe and a warning from Sanzar during the 2013 Super Rugby season.
"This matter bears a number of striking similarities with past instances, particularly the use of foul and abusive language towards those charged with running a match ..."

Cheika apparently has 9 years history of pulling this shit. What do we say about players who continually break the rules?

I have no doubt if the penalty count wasn't 9-1 in the 2nd and the Blues won we would've never heard of this whole thing. The fact that the penalty count was 8-1 to the Blues in the 1st half just means a square up due to variance was always likely in the 2nd.

A bullshit yellow card to the Tahs best player would have certainly been handy then.

 

[Grant NZ]

Could be the same but I know players bans are still under the directive of the IRB even though handed out by SANZAR. For instance after many complaints SANZAR wanted to change bans from weeks to matches but couldn't until the IRB do so too.

There's about a zero percent chance of the IRB not enforcing a SANZAR ban on an Australian. Now, if it were the English coach.......

 

[ShtinaTina]

"Look any deeper into the matter and you'll end up finding the answers to who really gave the All Blacks food poisoning in 1995. You've got it. It was Michael Cheika. "

Georgina's cracked the case!
http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/uni...feree-and-michael-cheika-20150409-1mh7bd.html

 

[ChargerWA]

I have said twice that I can't believe that Peyper didn't know it was against the rules.

It wasn't 6 months just for abusing a cameraman.



Cheika apparently has 9 years history of pulling this shit. What do we say about players who continually break the rules?



A bullshit yellow card to the Tahs best player would have certainly been handy then.

All right, you've got us. It was Cheika who was the gunman on the grassy knoll. He apparently shot underarm just to rub salt in the wound too.

 

[Bullrush]

OK....swap the Waratahs for the ABs, the Blues for the Wallabies and Hansen for Cheika in a Bledisloe decider and tell me that you still think that it' not that bad a look.

 

[fatprop]

OK..swap the Waratahs for the ABs, the Blues for the Wallabies and Hansen for Cheika in a Bledisloe decider and tell me that you still think that it' not that bad a look.

not a great look? no

hanging offence? no

 

[Bullrush]

I suppose its too much to ask if anyone has a copy of the SANZAR code of conduct?

According to the NZ Herald:

Section 8.3 of the Code of Conduct clearly states: "All persons ... shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."

 

[Bullrush]

not a great look? no

hanging offence? no

I call bullshit. Especially after all the shit you guys have give McCaw and the ABs over the years for apparently manipulating and intimidating officials. Not to mention the carry on over Paddy O'Brien and Stu Dickinson.

So again...bullshit.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The matter happened as has been dealt with, but it is difficult to aacept that neither Cheika nor Pyper knew the law.

But Tahs'posters should stop trying to minimise the affair through put-down humour. It really is a serious breach for a team coach to approach the referee at half time.

 

[Bullrush]

The matter happened as has been dealt with, but it is difficult to aacept that neither Cheika nor Pyper knew the law.

But Tahs'posters should stop trying to minimise the affair through put-down humour. It really is a serious breach for a team coach to approach the referee at half time.

Thanks BR.

As a Blues fan it obviously hurts more but I haven't disputed once that the penalties in the 2nd half weren't warranted (except the YC which I don't think many people agreed with) or ever said this is why the Blues lost.

I maintain that the facts surrounding what happened and the way it's been handled look very poor and set a bad precedent if this is the general reaction - nothing to see here, move along move along.

 

[Braveheart81]

I call bullshit. Especially after all the shit you guys have give McCaw and the ABs over the years for apparently manipulating and intimidating officials. Not to mention the carry on over Paddy O'Brien and Stu Dickinson.

But when people make comments that the All Blacks and McCaw are unfairly favoured by referees, you and most New Zealanders quite rightly call bullshit and tell people that it's nothing but tinfoil hat stuff.

This incident would be being treated more seriously if it was more serious. There were multiple witnesses (the Assistant Referees) who attested that the conversation was polite and nothing untoward happened.

If there hadn't been witnesses or the witnesses described something else then a more thorough investigation and hearing would have been required.

You have kept bringing up facts that 1. Cheika spoke to Peyeper at halftime when he shouldn't have. 2. The 2nd half penalty count was 9-1 to the Waratahs and 3. There was a dubious yellow card against Jerome Kaino.

You're leaving out perhaps the key fact of the whole matter that the contents of Peyper and Cheika's discussion is known and it entirely centred around Cheika asking for clarification on the sequence of scrums before half time.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Almost time for rule 10.

Both sides of the discussion have had their say, and there doesn't seem to be any new evidence coming out.

Cheika shouldn't have approached the Ref at halftime.

The referee shouldn't have responded to the approach from the coach.

SANZAR investigation/judiciary can be a bit of a lottery at the best of times, but they did investigate the matter and they produced an outcome from their investigation as per their procedures.

With his past history, and now this, Cheika will need to walk on egg shells from now on and any hint of misconduct will most likely be dealt with far more seriously than any other coach would receive.

 

[Bullrush]

But when people make comments that the All Blacks and McCaw are unfairly favoured by referees, you and most New Zealanders quite rightly call bullshit and tell people that it's nothing but tinfoil hat stuff.

This incident would be being treated more seriously if it was more serious. There were multiple witnesses (the Assistant Referees) who attested that the conversation was polite and nothing untoward happened.

If there hadn't been witnesses or the witnesses described something else then a more thorough investigation and hearing would have been required.

You have kept bringing up facts that 1. Cheika spoke to Peyeper at halftime when he shouldn't have. 2. The 2nd half penalty count was 9-1 to the Waratahs and 3. There was a dubious yellow card against Jerome Kaino.

You're leaving out perhaps the key fact of the whole matter that the contents of Peyper and Cheika's discussion is known and it entirely centred around Cheika asking for clarification on the sequence of scrums before half time.

The difference is, the ABs and McCaw haven't broken the Laws or the Code of Conduct in their dealings with officials.

And the key fact is not what was said at all. The Laws don't say a coach can talk to a ref during a game so long as he's polite and he's just seeking clarification on a ruling.
The Law is there because of the impression that it gives - see Code of Conduct:

Section 8.3 of the Code of Conduct clearly states: "All persons ... shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."

If this was a SA coach in a RWC Final against the Wallabies, guarantee you guys would be wanting more than a 'please explain' letter and a warning.

 

[Bullrush]

Sorry Hugh Jarse,

Was writing my post while you were obviously writing yours.