I had an ex from Perth and on one flight she took back there the captain said "Please set your watches back 3 hours and 10 years."
Byrnes gets 10 Weeks
- Thread starter rugbyisfun
- Start date
- Status
I had an ex from Perth and on one flight she took back there the captain said "Please set your watches back 3 hours and 10 years."
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Has there been news on the appeal?
Forcefield
Ken Catchpole (46)
Hah! You would love to have him back. As soon as Stephen Moore gets injured you guys are up the creek.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
"Hit" was your word - not mine.
You'll get no argument from me that Beau wasn't fishing for a reaction - he was. But to bring this back to the Byrnes topic, Cliffy deliberately and aggressively grabbed Beau's face. Going by the same criteria that Byrnes has been judged on by posts in this forum, (ie dubious past and not necessarily Super Rugby past, and contact with the face - regardless of intent or damage) Cliffy should be having a long term break as well.
I don't for a second think that Cliffy should be suspended or even cited for that matter - there was nothing in it. What I am trying to illustrate is the folly of some of the arguments against Byrnes. It should not matter one bit if he is a "serial pest"; his Super Rugby judiciary record is the only prior form that should be considered. And the fact that his hand is across the face of TC only, is not evidence of an eye gouge. If they rubbed out for 10 weeks, every player that came into contact with anothers players face during a game, the franchises would be trotting out thier U13B's as thier premier side by week 5.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
He has lodged an apeal against the 'outcome'. So does this mean he has admitted the contact but is appealing the length of the suspension?
Mr Timms, since you are the lord of the laws, is there anywhere in the laws or clarifications that allow for dangerous play to be accidential and therefore attract lesser sanctions? Not only in this particular law but others as well. Just noticed that the tackle that got the Bulls player suspended for one week (name escapes me right now) didn't seem all that worse then some of the others that resulted in the players leaving their feet. Not condoning the tackle, think he should have got suspended for it, just wondering why some of the others weren't looked at.
Mr Timms, since you are the lord of the laws, is there anywhere in the laws or clarifications that allow for dangerous play to be accidential and therefore attract lesser sanctions? Not only in this particular law but others as well. Just noticed that the tackle that got the Bulls player suspended for one week (name escapes me right now) didn't seem all that worse then some of the others that resulted in the players leaving their feet. Not condoning the tackle, think he should have got suspended for it, just wondering why some of the others weren't looked at.
MrTimms
Ken Catchpole (46)
Yeah, it is hard to say. I will have a browse through the book and see what sticks out.
I have heard the same thing.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Yeah, Canberra is god's own country compared to WA. All those unspoilt beaches, national parks and a mediterranean climate to die for......
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Yeah, Canberra is god's own country compared to WA. All those unspoilt beaches, national parks and a mediterranean climate to die for......
Plus the Canberra CBD is a fascinating place to wander around for a few hours - trying to find the bloody thing.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Exactly. Lets go back and check all the 24 incidents (purely made up number by me) that Byrne's defense submitted showing similar actions for no penalty, card or hearing, and decide if we can somehow convince ourselves that this one was different (apart from the obvious difference of another player complaining and utilisation of the white card system).
If they decide that Byrnes is the new standard, I will expect multiple suspensions every week.
If they decide that Byrnes is the new standard, I will expect multiple suspensions every week.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Agreed Scarf. And they really can only review the 3 rounds that have been played since the introduction on the white card system. I wonder how they are going to handle incidents that are identified as being as bad or worse and were not reported/cited. I am guessing that this is what the system is going to have to find out. Like changes in legislation, not until it is tested do we know the true outcome.
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Well, you would have to figure they won't reduce it below two weeks given that Byrnes will probably have to sit out two matches (last week and this week) and that wouldn't reflect well on the judiciary. Davidson QC (Quade Cooper) is probably too canny to let that happen. So between 2 and 10 weeks then.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
It is still his evidence though, isn't it? One player says one thing, the other says something else (at least that is likely what has happened).
And based on history with this sort of 'attacking the face' being let off (eg Burger on Pocock) despite there being clear vision of it, it seems reasonable to follow that the complaint of the player led to a greater chance of sanction (by ensuring the white card was used and thus ensuring it would be brought to a judiciary). I'm not saying Carter did the wrong thing at all, but I do believe a lot of this stuff just gets ignored by officials that shouldn't be.
Is the difference with the Burger incident that Pocock never made a complaint about it?
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
If this is the case it is a bit of a worry.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
From the outside, it appears to me that there was a lot more video evidence against burger than there was against byrnes, so it isn't an illogical conclusion to make.
- Status