Byrnes gets 10 Weeks

[fatprop]

More likely to be a fine if found guilty, I'd have thought?

Media attacks by accused/cleared players is simply unhelpful.

SANZAR wants players to come forward and make any claims in the game to the ref so he can request the judiciary to look at; and then they do their job on the available evidence.

Byrnes needs to be fined for his comments and the judiciary sanctioned for their decision to hit him with 12 weeks then go to zero

 

[Schadenfreude]

Except, you can't sanction the judiciary. A system like that will neer work if the adjudicators need to make popular decisions.

The appeal process worked. Let's be thankful for that.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's hard to see how SANZAR won't fine him.

They really make it open slather if they let him get away with it.

I look forward to the return to the forum of Rugby rebel saying that Tom Carter pay Adam Byrnes' fine and make an even bigger apology.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Players should do their talking on the field but not through their mouths but performances. No slating in the world beats a good on field display. It is rugby guys lets leave the off the pitch chirping for the football coaches

 

[Slim 293]

I don't see why they've waited all these weeks after the fact...?

Something missing in the story?

 

[The Red Baron]

I look forward to the return to the forum of Rugby rebel saying that Tom Carter pay Adam Byrnes' fine and make an even bigger apology.

Please no, for the love of god....

 

[Scotty]

Except, you can't sanction the judiciary. A system like that will neer work if the adjudicators need to make popular decisions.

The appeal process worked. Let's be thankful for that.

It worked in it's result but not in it's timing. It took way too long to sort out.

 

[BPC]

 

[Scarfman]

It's Rule 11. Any thread involving Tom Carter must serve a mandatory 10 pages.

 

[Keithy]

Byrnes needs to be fined for his comments and the judiciary sanctioned for their decision to hit him with 12 weeks then go to zero

Byrnes got off on appeal because Carter's claimed he was eye gauged on the ground. this claim was proven to be false and the judiciary had to let Byrnes off.
What he said about Carter is what everyone except Bruce Ross thinks about the bloke so why should he be fined.

 

[cyclopath]

Byrnes got off on appeal because Carter's claimed he was eye gauged on the ground. this claim was proven to be false and the judiciary had to let Byrnes off.
What he said about Carter is what everyone except Bruce Ross thinks about the bloke so why should he be fined.

Thanks for speaking for all of us, Keithy.
Anything else we all think, that you need to share with us?
By all means speak for yourself, but do us a favour, and keep it at that.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Byrnes got off on appeal because Carter's claimed he was eye gauged on the ground. this claim was proven to be false and the judiciary had to let Byrnes off.
What he said about Carter is what everyone except Tahs Supporters thinks about the bloke so why should he be fined.

fixed that for you.

 

[cyclopath]

fixed that for you.

That was not my point, and I think you know it.
But thanks for your input as ever.

 

[Schadenfreude]

That was not my point, and I think you know it.
But thanks for your input as ever.

your humble servant.

 

[Shiggins]

what season did this happen in again?

 

[kiap]

Byrnes got off on appeal because Carter's claimed he was eye gauged on the ground. this claim was proven to be false and the judiciary had to let Byrnes off.
What he said about Carter is what everyone except Bruce Ross thinks about the bloke so why should he be fined.

Two things:
1. Carter's claim was not "proven to be false". The re-hearing found that the evidence available was inconclusive and did not meet the standard of proof required to say a breach of the Law 10.4(m) occurred.
2. The timing as to whether the alleged incident happened while the players were "on the ground", getting up from the ground, or before they fell to ground, had no bearing on the appeal.

Byrnes rightly got off and SANZAR farked up with their original 10 week decision. But the question of any fine over subsequent events will wait until Tuesday.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the latest gouge allegation (from the Bulls). Crusaders want an apology if it's unfounded.

 

[BPC]

Byrnes got off on appeal because Carter's claimed he was eye gauged on the ground. this claim was proven to be false and the judiciary had to let Byrnes off.

I am fascinated to know how you know what Carter said during the original hearing. How did you get the statement and transcript? Or did you use tea leaves and an ouija board?

 

[Brisbok]

Not that I need to add anymore fuel to the fire on this thread, but a similar incident occured in the Bulls vs Crusaders game on the weekend. During the match, two Bulls players (Chilliboy Ralepelle and Flip van der Merwe) indicated that they had been eye gouged at some point during the match. This was communicated to the ref by captain Pierre Spies and a white card was issued.

The judiciary could not find any video evidence of this occuring. The Crusaders are wanting an apology from the Bulls over the negative publicity this has caused for the Crusaders.

Should the Bulls now apologise given that no evidence could be found? In doing so they would basically be suggesting that their players made up the whole issue.

 

[Tiger]

Agreed Brisbok - why would a team apologise for that? Isn't the whole point of the white card system to ensure that these things can get reviewed? Finding that there was insufficient evidence to charge the bloke is very different to proving it didn't happen.

 

[fatprop]

Not that I need to add anymore fuel to the fire on this thread, but a similar incident occured in the Bulls vs Crusaders game on the weekend. During the match, two Bulls players (Chilliboy Ralepelle and Flip van der Merwe) indicated that they had been eye gouged at some point during the match. This was communicated to the ref by captain Pierre Spies and a white card was issued.

The judiciary could not find any video evidence of this occuring. The Crusaders are wanting an apology from the Bulls over the negative publicity this has caused for the Crusaders.

Should the Bulls now apologise given that no evidence could be found? In doing so they would basically be suggesting that their players made up the whole issue.

No

Just because it wasn't caught on video doesn't mean there wasn't some work on the face of a player. The process of highlighting the moment and moving on gives the judiciary the impetus to look at it. (you may notice I didn't use the word gouge, all the player really knows is someone was around his eyes)

The more it is highlighted, the more players will realise they can't get away with it.