Waratahs v Blues, Saturday 28 March, Round 7 2015

[Gnostic]

NZ Herald spewin

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11430861

So what happened last night exactly the same thing in teems of penalty counts. Maybe it's something to do with the Blues?

As for its straight out cheating, I stand by my comments on POB . Secondly what about coaches illegal tactics used by ABs and crusaders for many years, such as a try scored by a flanker who had detached and run 5 metres from the scrum before the ball is out. It was a set play and obviously coached and we'll executed, doesn't change the fact it isn't legal.

Got to say I'm over the whole thing, nobody in Oz that I can see has argued in favour of Chieka, I argued for Peyper who I think was put in a bad spot by Chieka, but the hysteria from NZ posters and journalists is laughable and makes me wish I could advocate for Chieka after all.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

NZ Herald not giving up the good battle, and the person who penned "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" was obviously not around when Rugby was invented.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11432094

 

[Dismal Pillock]

NZ Herald not giving up the good battle, and the person who penned "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" was obviously not around when Rugby was invented.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11432094

haha, virtually nothing happened. And yet if the Herald didnt have such an apoplectic journo-spasm it wouldve been completely hushed up. And the hushed-up bit is now a scab that is driving them so nuts.

Chieka witlessly stoked the fires with his "NZ hates me" jibe, just about compelling dumb old Herald into replying. Just shut up!

 

[Quick Hands]

NZ Herald not giving up the good battle, and the person who penned "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" was obviously not around when Rugby was invented.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11432094

Similar journalism to what we see from NRL journos in the Telegraph.

 

[Bullrush]

Similar journalism to what we see from NRL journos in the Telegraph.

Similar report in The Australian about 2 days ago.

You never actually address the issues that surround this QH. Just look to diminish the whole thing with disparaging comments.

Statements like this don't actually address the issue:

""If there was any evidence of cheating we would certainly have taken a different course of action, but we absolutely refute that there was any evidence available of that action or intent."

I don't think there has been any accusation of 'cheating' by anyone but there has definitely been questions asked about:

1. How Cheika could think what he did was OK given he's been fined for it in the past.
2. It seems that there seems to be a pretty clear 'no-go' line for the other coaches for every othergame of Super Rugby. You don't go into the refs room.
3. Why SANZAR tried to keep this quiet.
4. Why SANZAR would send warnings and reminders if there was no breach of the Code of Conduct or breaking of the Laws.
5. How will this be consistently ruled if there are any future incidents.

The reality is, if Cheika didn't already have the 6-month ban hanging over his head, the outcome would have been much different. I mean, it seems like SANZAR had very little heart to really do much given that the only people they have said to get 'evidence' from are the 2 people involved in the breach.

"We stand by the evidence provided by both Jaco Peyper and Michael Cheika about the nature, tone and timing of the exchange."

And this isn't from the NZ Herald.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/rugby-australia-cheika-idUKL4N0XA02U20150413

 

[FrankLind]

SANZAR were scared to enforce the 6 month suspended sentence.
That's all this excuse making and deflection really amounts to.

 

[FrankLind]

Can't seem to edit my post above.

The cheating or not cheating is a deflection.
The polite or not polite is a deflection.
The Kiwis like me or don't like me is a deflection.

The only issue is he spoke to the ref' at half-time.
You are NOT allowed to do this and he knew it.
Fact is, he couldn't control himself (as per usual)

 

[Joeleee]

Hmm, I've given it some thought and this whole thing could work in our favour come world cup time. The Kiwis will all be so irate about Cheika, they'll be too distracted to play their best, and the Wallabies will waltz up to take Bill

 

[Quick Hands]

Similar report in The Australian about 2 days ago.

You never actually address the issues that surround this QH. Just look to diminish the whole thing with disparaging comments.

Statements like this don't actually address the issue:

""If there was any evidence of cheating we would certainly have taken a different course of action, but we absolutely refute that there was any evidence available of that action or intent."

I don't think there has been any accusation of 'cheating' by anyone but there has definitely been questions asked about:

1. How Cheika could think what he did was OK given he's been fined for it in the past.
2. It seems that there seems to be a pretty clear 'no-go' line for the other coaches for every othergame of Super Rugby. You don't go into the refs room.
3. Why SANZAR tried to keep this quiet.
4. Why SANZAR would send warnings and reminders if there was no breach of the Code of Conduct or breaking of the Laws.
5. How will this be consistently ruled if there are any future incidents.

The reality is, if Cheika didn't already have the 6-month ban hanging over his head, the outcome would have been much different. I mean, it seems like SANZAR had very little heart to really do much given that the only people they have said to get 'evidence' from are the 2 people involved in the breach.

"We stand by the evidence provided by both Jaco Peyper and Michael Cheika about the nature, tone and timing of the exchange."

And this isn't from the NZ Herald.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/rugby-australia-cheika-idUKL4N0XA02U20150413

I have addressed the issues, you just don't agree with my views.

I'm not sure where the quotation above about cheating comes from, it certainly wasn't in any post that I can recall making so it's a bit misleading to have it as part of a post addressed to me.

You need to try to separate fact and opinion when analysing these issues. These are the facts as I see them:

1. Michael Cheika approached Jaco Peyper at half time
2. There was a "short polite" conversation about one particular ruling
3. The conversation was in front of witesses
4. SANZAR received a complaint about the matter
5. SANZAR investigated the matter
6. SANZAR say that there is no evidence that the conversation had any impact on the match
7.SANZAR say that the conversation wasn't against the code of conduct because it was abusive or threatening
8. SANZAR say that they have now written to all teams advising them that coaches should not approach officials during the match

Point 8 indicates to me that it would now be a breach of the code of conduct for a coach to do what Michael Cheika did.

My opinion (not facts, but my opinion) is that coaches shouldn't approach referees or other officials during the match. My opinion is that players, coaches and any other participants are bound by the laws of the game and by the relevant code of conduct for their competition. My opinion is that if there is an allegation of a breach, it should be investigated and if thought fit put before a disciplinary tribunal where a determination is made on the basis of facts and evidence not emotion and opinion.

In none of my posts on this (or any other issue) have I used insulting or abusive language towards you or anyone else, whereas you have repeatedly used the term bullshit and others when answering my posts, so it's a bit ironic that you start this post of complaining about me making disparaging comments.

 

[fatprop]

SANZAR were scared to enforce the 6 month suspended sentence.
That's all this excuse making and deflection really amounts to.

Cheika, in reality, would have to kill someone, to get that suspension

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^^ and if he did he would then stake a serious claim to Coach @Dismal Pillock's All Time Crim XV.

 

[Quick Hands]

There is of course the distinct possiblity that when SANZAR drew up their Code of Conduct, they simply overlooked putting in a clause prohibiting a coach from having a conversation with the referee at half time. It's clear that they included all the stuff about abuse and threats, but maybe no-one actually thought to put the conversation bit down in writing.

Whilst this is an opinion, I was suggest that when one applies some logic it is perfectly reasonable. I would assume, for example, that all teams have a copy of the code of conduct (including the Auckland Blues), so that if SANZAR made up the fact that the simple act of speaking to the referee was not against the code, that the Blues could have immediately said; "but clause x specifically says that a coach cannot approach or speak to the referee at half time".

 

[Bullrush]

Riiiight - so comparing the Herald to the Telegrapgh was complimentary not disparaging?! My mistake.

In answer to your numbered points:

1. Michael Cheika approached Jaco Peyper at half time - YES. He went into the refs room. This is understood to have already been a big 'no-go' area already. It doesn't seem to be the norm. It's highly irregular and seems to be already viewed by most coaches as something that you just don't do.
2. There was a "short polite" conversation about one particular ruling. Irrelevant. Cheika should never have been in that room having that conversation in the first place.
3. The conversation was in front of witnesses. Again - irrelevant. He could have had the conversation in front of Judge Judy as his witness and it still shouldn't have happened. The only witness who it may have been OK to have that conversation with present is Sir John Kirwan - the opposing coach.
4. SANZAR received a complaint about the matter. YES.
5. SANZAR investigated the matter. YES. Even though they were pretty keen to keep the whole thing pretty hush hush and were unwilling to answer questions on it until the Herald kept pushing the case.
6. SANZAR say that there is no evidence that the conversation had any impact on the match. YES. They got evidence from Cheika and Peyper - the 2 people at the centre of the investigation.
7.SANZAR say that the conversation wasn't against the code of conduct because it wasn't abusive or threatening. See Point 2.
8. SANZAR say that they have now written to all teams advising them that coaches should not approach officials during the match.

Point 8 indicates to me that it would now be a breach of the code of conduct for a coach to do what Michael Cheika did. Have they added a new rule or amended the Code of Conduct? How is it that the other coaches ALREADY thought that this was a breach? How was this not already clear to Cheika given that it seems like it been part of why he's been fined and punished before? Is this the ONLY game he's ever wanted a ref's clarification at halftime? Why hasn't he done in other games? Why haven't other coaches, in the last 15-odd years of Super Rugby, been knocking on the ref's door at half-time getting clarifications?

I call 'bullshit' on some of your posts because some of the clear inconsistencies in what you (and SANZAR) are trying to spin us is just plainly that.

You haven't addressed those issues at all apart from pointing to SANZAR and saying 'They said it's OK'.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Cheika, in reality, would have to kill someone, to get that suspension

haha, this sounds like the start of a Frank Doberman sketch. "...... but if Cheika, after calmly poking his head in the referee's door at halftime to politely query a referee's ruling, were to murder someone......."

 

[Quick Hands]

Riiiight - so comparing the Herald to the Telegrapgh was complimentary not disparaging?! My mistake.

In answer to your numbered points:

1. Michael Cheika approached Jaco Peyper at half time - YES. He went into the refs room. This is understood to have already been a big 'no-go' area already. It doesn't seem to be the norm. It's highly irregular and seems to be already viewed by most coaches as something that you just don't do.
2. There was a "short polite" conversation about one particular ruling. Irrelevant. Cheika should never have been in that room having that conversation in the first place.
3. The conversation was in front of witnesses. Again - irrelevant. He could have had the conversation in front of Judge Judy as his witness and it still shouldn't have happened. The only witness who it may have been OK to have that conversation with present is Sir John Kirwan - the opposing coach.
4. SANZAR received a complaint about the matter. YES.
5. SANZAR investigated the matter. YES. Even though they were pretty keen to keep the whole thing pretty hush hush and were unwilling to answer questions on it until the Herald kept pushing the case.
6. SANZAR say that there is no evidence that the conversation had any impact on the match. YES. They got evidence from Cheika and Peyper - the 2 people at the centre of the investigation.
7.SANZAR say that the conversation wasn't against the code of conduct because it wasn't abusive or threatening. See Point 2.
8. SANZAR say that they have now written to all teams advising them that coaches should not approach officials during the match.

Point 8 indicates to me that it would now be a breach of the code of conduct for a coach to do what Michael Cheika did. Have they added a new rule or amended the Code of Conduct? How is it that the other coaches ALREADY thought that this was a breach? How was this not already clear to Cheika given that it seems like it been part of why he's been fined and punished before? Is this the ONLY game he's ever wanted a ref's clarification at halftime? Why hasn't he done in other games? Why haven't other coaches, in the last 15-odd years of Super Rugby, been knocking on the ref's door at half-time getting clarifications?

I call 'bullshit' on some of your posts because some of the clear inconsistencies in what you (and SANZAR) are trying to spin us is just plainly that.

You haven't addressed those issues at all apart from pointing to SANZAR and saying 'They said it's OK'.

Let's just agree to disagree, this is a pointless exercise.

I'll close by saying, it doesn't matter what people in the past have understood or what people think, what matters is what is written in the code of conduct. To date no-one has produced a copy of the code of conduct to refute anything that SANZAR have said.