Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Your point being???
Byrnes gets 10 Weeks
- Thread starter rugbyisfun
- Start date
- Status
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Really? If someone started making allegations about me and my team resorting to dirty, filthy acts like eye-gouging, I wouldn't be too happy about it.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Something similar to this one?
Yeah, the only possible way that could happen is a deliberate attempt at eye-gouging from the opposition.
Turn it up......
Bullrush it seems you have made up your mind on this one, despite a few very well-worded arguments against your points that you seem to have ignored.
The Crusaders have not have their name 'dragged through the mud' nor has any one individual player been affected. The allegations were made and dismissed. It's a non-event that no-one will be able to remember at the end of the year.
The Bulls were right to make the complaint, the Crusaders were probably right to feel slightly aggrieved about it.
But whingeing to the press and demanding an apology is a bit much. Forget about the Crusaders getting a reputation for foul play (which may well happen if Blackadder keeps harping on about it), if this continues they will get a reputation for being whingers.
.
The Crusaders have not have their name 'dragged through the mud' nor has any one individual player been affected. The allegations were made and dismissed. It's a non-event that no-one will be able to remember at the end of the year.
The Bulls were right to make the complaint, the Crusaders were probably right to feel slightly aggrieved about it.
But whingeing to the press and demanding an apology is a bit much. Forget about the Crusaders getting a reputation for foul play (which may well happen if Blackadder keeps harping on about it), if this continues they will get a reputation for being whingers.
.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Has no-one else made their mind up about it?
No, the Crusaders have not had their name dragged thru the mud - my question is, is that the point we wait for until we think that just making baseless allegations might not be good for the game?
If Blackadder were to come out and say that the Bulls (or any other team for that matter) are a team of thugs who play a dirty, dangerous brand of rugby, would that be OK?
Brisbok
Cyril Towers (30)
My point is that you have a very one-eyed (excuse the pun) view of the events and you refuse to consider any arguements that oppose this view.
The Crusaders 'reputation' has not been affected in any way by these allegations - no one involved in rugby will change their view of the Crusaders as a team based on those incidents. Since no individuals were mentioned, no player from the Crusaders has come out of it looking any better or worse.
Conversely, the Bulls could argue that Blackadder has tried to 'defame' Chilliboy and Flip van der Merwe, by specifically accusing them of completely fabricating the incidents. However, they have chosen to move on and perhaps Blackadder and the Crusaders should too.
Brisbok
Cyril Towers (30)
To re-iterate what someone else has already said, there is no proof or evidence that these allegations are completely baseless! You would have to have a perfect, unobstructed view of both players' faces for the whole time that they are in the ruck where the incidents are said to have occured and determine that no object has come anywhere near their eye's to conclude that the player's completely fabricated the story.
As shown by the photo of Flip van der Merwe, some object has definitely come into contact with his eye. While this may not have been a deliberate eye gouge, and may in fact have been caused by something entirely unrelated to an opposition player's finger, if Flip felt that he had been eye gouged he should request that the incident be reviewed.
You keep calling them 'baseless' allegations, despite the fact that they were not at all baseless. (edit: Brisbok beat me to it)
And I don't know what you are elluding to with your second statement. Nowhere did anyone (outside the Crusaders) believe that that was what Chili and co were trying to imply. They felt something they thought should be investigated, it was and the Crusaders were cleared of any wrongdoing.
If Blackadder wanted to raise specific issues of foul play for the citing commisioner to look at he would be well within his rights to do so. However he should accept the verdict that is passed down and get on with it without involving the media.
It's a little like Graham Henry's gushing endorsement of Keven Mealamu a few years back, about how he was such a good Christian bloke, he could never have committed an incident of foul play. Just because Todd says they're all angels above reproach does not necessarily make it so. And besides, who really thinks the Crusaders are now "a pack of dirty pricks" (my words, for effect) because of this. Certainly not me.
Maybe he's trying to deflect from why the Crusaders aren't travelling as well as they ought?
Maybe he's trying to deflect from why the Crusaders aren't travelling as well as they ought?
Aaah, nobody said that. But if that happens, and the recipient does not know exactly how it happened, should they just cop it for fear of besmirching somebody's reputation?
The issue was dismissed, there was no proven gouging, everything's apples. Except with Todd, where it's sour grapes.
Tiger
Alfred Walker (16)
I agree absolutely that a person should not be vilified for making a complaint that isn't proven.
My understanding is that what is in issue here is different.
Isn't Blackadder really asking for an apology because the Bulls players made the complaint on-field, but did not follow it through with giving evidence off the field? Or have I got that wrong?
If the player is certain enough about their being eye the subject of deliberate contact to complain to the ref and that incident then gets referred under the white card system, the player should follow through with giving evidence. Not doing so may suggest that: (a) there was no merit in the original complaint and it was a try-on with the ref; or (b) that the aggrieved player has decided not to follow through with the complaint because what-happens-on-the-field-stays-on-the-field. In either case, it's antithetical to the white-card process.
That, I think, is the real issue. If it's serious enough to say a player is an eye gouger, it's serious enough to go on oath about it. If he goes on oath but the finding is not guilty, there should absolutely not be any apology. The aggrieved player played his role in the system; no more, no less. The present situation is a bit different.
My understanding is that what is in issue here is different.
Isn't Blackadder really asking for an apology because the Bulls players made the complaint on-field, but did not follow it through with giving evidence off the field? Or have I got that wrong?
If the player is certain enough about their being eye the subject of deliberate contact to complain to the ref and that incident then gets referred under the white card system, the player should follow through with giving evidence. Not doing so may suggest that: (a) there was no merit in the original complaint and it was a try-on with the ref; or (b) that the aggrieved player has decided not to follow through with the complaint because what-happens-on-the-field-stays-on-the-field. In either case, it's antithetical to the white-card process.
That, I think, is the real issue. If it's serious enough to say a player is an eye gouger, it's serious enough to go on oath about it. If he goes on oath but the finding is not guilty, there should absolutely not be any apology. The aggrieved player played his role in the system; no more, no less. The present situation is a bit different.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
One picture gives the allegations some validity? Any pics of Chiliboy's apparent eye-gouge?
"I'm not trying to say they're dirty or engaging in foul play but I think they tried to eye gouge me." ??????
Is it OK to just make allegations against other teams and players?? With little to no evidence?
What happens if another player makes the same allegation in the Crusaders game this week? And again in 2 weeks. Do we start thinking that the Crusaders or cetain players are dirty despite the fact there is nothing to prove it??
You guys keep saying that there is no proof that the allegations are baseless - there is no proof that they aren't either!
What we do know is that there is very little history of the Crusaders or thei players doing these kind of acts. (Yes, much like the Mealamu incident....whether you like it or not - it's true). A person's previous, proven conduct is a good yard-stick to use when weighing up whether they have done something wrong. It's not the be-all and end-all of the matter but it does play a part.
I'm not a big Crusaders fan at all (I was the only person in my local pub in NZ back in 2009 cheering for the Waratahs!!) but I don't like the idea that players can start requesting the ref that other players get investigated later while still in the middle of the game. There is already a process for players and teams to voice those concerns and have them looked at after the game. During the game, it should be solely the domain of the referee to instigate any immediate or future ction against foul or possible foul play.
Look at all the players that come out of rucks and mauls with swollen faces or a bit of blood flowing - do we really want these incidents then being put up as a white card situation? What if Richie had asked the referee to 'white card' Quade Cooper for his knee to the head? Or Quade Cooper to ask the ref to 'white card' Richie for his kick out to the his legs? It could get ridiculous.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Saw this after my post - I agree. Which must mean you are Todd Blackadder......
Jeez, you sure think the worst of these Saffers, don't you?
What you are alleging here is that what Chili did was complain to the ref about eye-gouging- not for a penalty (giving his team an on-field advantage) but to take it to the citing commissioner after the game (giving his side no advantage). So the obvious question is if he WAS making a false accusation (which you seem to believe) why did he ask for a WC and not a penalty? Surely that would be the logical move if you were being cynical.
And you ask about evidence, well Chili's experience is the evidence. he said he was eye-gouged. The footage shows he had his head over the ball and may have copped something in the eye. So it wasn't totally unfounded. You have to take this on face value, as he had little motivation to lie as I have said above.
Well that's nice, but totally irrelevant in 95% of the process. The previous record of a player should only count in sentencing once he is proven guilty. It doesn't matter to the ref on the field or the citing comissioner.
I would much prefer these incidents to be referred to citing comissioner AT THE TIME rather than waiting around until after the game. The QC (Quade Cooper) vs Richie example you use is telling.
If Quade had referred the original kick he copped from Richie to the citing comissioner, the rest of the shenanigans could have been entirely avoided. The CC would have said 'the kick was accidental' and that would have been the end of it.
Instead we had this long back-and-forth dual on the field, with both guys trying to settle scores in backplay. That is what the White Card system is trying to prevent.
So whilst it's a wild hypothetical, perhaps if the White Card had been in place, the whole Richie-QC (Quade Cooper) thing would not have happened. QC (Quade Cooper) would not have been booed in NZ and thus would have had a stormer of a RWC, leading the Wallabies to the title...
.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
1. This has NOTHING to do with the Bulls being a SA team!! I would think exactly the same thing if the Blues or the Highlanders did the same. I resent that you are implying that I am saying these things based on race or nationality.
2. If Chiliboy REALLY thought he'd been eye-gouged, why didn't the Bulls follow through with the complaint in the 4hr time frame? He may not have lied out-right but it seems he doesn't really know exactly what happened. To accuse another team of such dirty tactics like eye-gouging when you yourself are not sure how something happened is very bad form - IMO.
3. When you have little or no evidence that someone has done something wrong, then you do look at the persons previous conduct which is an indicator of their character. That is normal.
4. A white card would not have settled the QC (Quade Cooper)/Richie thing?! I highly doubt it.
Again, I personally don't want to see players instigating future implications for players while the game is still being played. There is opportunity to do that after the game but I don't think a player should be able to take a "I think they may have tried to eye-gouge me but I'm not sure if was just accidental contact or exactly which player it was or even if it was the other team at all.....but I definetly have a sore eye" and turn that into future investigation while the game is still in the balance.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
There used to be a way doing this - to a certain extent. It was called rucking.....lol
So to add yet another chapter to this, SANZAR has now reserved their decision on whether to impose sanctions on Byrnes for the comments made about Tom Carter in the press.
Byrnes and the Rebels provided the defence that there was no proof that Byrnes actually said the various defamatory and inflammatory statements to the journalist that printed them.
Byrnes and the Rebels provided the defence that there was no proof that Byrnes actually said the various defamatory and inflammatory statements to the journalist that printed them.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
What.... you mean a journalist has embelished the truth to make a story bigger than it actually is???? Shock Horror.
That is what the Rebels are saying. Whether it is true or not is another story entirely.
- Status