Waratahs v Blues, Saturday 28 March, Round 7 2015

[Pfitzy]

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.

But are we sure - are we utterly CONVINCED - that the other side of the circle looks any different than last time we went through there?

 

[Lindommer]

Br, you're obviously a passionate Blues supporter and very disappointed to see your ream lose in such circumstances. Your reactions are quite understandable. BUT, there's not much more can be added after Peyper's fellow match officials reported on the incident and SANZAR deemed it not a hanging offence.

 

[Pfitzy]

And if anyone thinks Cheika is capable of influencing Peyper, they've never seen Peyper ref a game.

Not even the gods themselves know what he will do. I'm not sure he does.

 

[Bullrush]

LOL - you're probably right Pfitzy.

Although I will say again - the issue isn't that Peyper WAS influenced, it's the perception that he could have been. It is an activity, in the words of the Code of Conduct, could easily impair public confidence in the honest conduct of a match.

Again, I guarantee there would be Bob Dwyer write-ups on the front page, calls for royal commissions and all sorts of out-rage here if this exact scenario happened against the Wallabies in RWC semi or final or a Bledisloe decider or last year's Super Rugby final.

 

[Gnostic]

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.

How about the ABs ending Dickenson's career over correct scrum rulings against Crockett and having nice meetings with the boss of referees who then nicely releases systems for them, which were wrong in content as well as in procedure? The NZRU doesn't have any moral high ground.

Chieka did wrong (again). Peyper responded politely in all likelihood instead of telling him no comment you can't be here. IMO is a bit hard on Peyper to hang him out to dry for responding to a question, he didn't go looking for the conversation he was in the dressing room.

 

[Braveheart81]

The only actual law that has clearly been broken is 6.A.7 (e) The referee must not consult with any other persons [aside from the other match officials].

Again, I guarantee there would be Bob Dwyer write-ups on the front page, calls for royal commissions and all sorts of out-rage here if this exact scenario happened against the Wallabies in RWC semi or final or a Bledisloe decider or last year's Super Rugby final.

This is true but these sort of reactions should be met with ridicule. In my view it is an embarrassing reaction that is pretty irrational and done in the midst of being bitter about the result.

It just provides an easy scapegoat for people's anger and disapppointment.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

precedent

I am confused, so does this now mean that every coach gets one free shot at the refs at halftime, then they can hold this case as precedent and say "ok, guilty as charged, just give me my warning from SANZAR, I promise it wont happen again"? Sanzar wont have a legal leg to stand on once any coach can just quote this case as precedent? Or does that change now that Sanzar have issued their little directive saying dont be naughty from now on?

Time for the Blues to call up their trusted lawyer!

"7, hands off?"​

 

[Bullrush]

Gnostic

1. Did the ABs do anything that broke a Law or the Code of Conduct? No. POB also publicly apologized to Dickinson - are you demanding one from Cheika and Peyper?

2. It's Peyper JOB to NOT respond to that question - not really hard to do at all. You simply say, "Michael, you can't be here, I'll have to ask you to leave." Not hard at all.
And it's Cheika's responsibility NOT to put Peyper in that position in the first place.

As you yourself said Cheika did wrong again. Exactly.

 

[Bullrush]

@Lindommer - don't try and douse my righteous anger with your sweet whisperings and gentle, soothing words!!

 

[boyo]

As if No. 7 would comply.

 

[fatprop]

I am confused, so does this now mean that every coach gets one free shot at the refs at halftime, then they can hold this case as precedent and say "ok, guilty as charged, just give me my warning from SANZAR, I promise it wont happen again"? Sanzar wont have a legal leg to stand on once any coach can just quote this case as precedent? Or does that change now that Sanzar have issued their little directive saying dont be naughty from now on?

Time for the Blues to call up their trusted lawyer!

"7, hands off?"​

no, now the ref has to walk around with his fingers in his ears singing loudly

and the coach will be tasered

 

[Bullrush]

and the coach will be tasered

Agreed. Peyper would be bloody close as well.

 

[Gnostic]

Gnostic

1. Did the ABs do anything that broke a Law or the Code of Conduct? No. POB also publicly apologized to Dickinson - are you demanding one from Cheika and Peyper?

2. It's Peyper JOB to NOT respond to that question - not really hard to do at all. You simply say, "Michael, you can't be here, I'll have to ask you to leave." Not hard at all.
And it's Cheika's responsibility NOT to put Peyper in that position in the first place.

As you yourself said Cheika did wrong again. Exactly.

1. No strictly speaking they did not, but they approached POB. But unlike Peyper who didn't seek any contact with Chieka, POB actively compromised his position by accepting the ABs invitation and subsequently making official statements (official because he was the chief of Refs so any comment is official) against Dickenson which were wrong in fact. When did POB publicly apologise to Dickenson?

I would not want an apology from Peyper, as IMO he didn't do anything wrong. Cheika approached him. Chieka should be apoligising to Peyper for putting him in such a position, and to SANZAR/Rugby for compromising the perception people may have of Peyper. The visit no matter how polite and how narrow the matters discussed was very very ill advised. I certainly would be expecting a person of empathy to acknowledge the position Peyper was placed in.

2. That leads into Peyper's reaction when the coach of a team knocks on his door. This is a person with whom Peyper, we can expect, has had extensive previous contact. He is taken off guard and asked a question "Hey Jaco, what was that last scrum about mate?" "Oh yeah I told him to use it.." etc etc. If somebody you know reasonably well knocks on your door and you aren't a lawyer or a cop you aren't experienced in the need to maintain distance in some circumstances. I feel for him as he was broadsided and has now been censured for being approached and not telling Chieka to P.O.

That is where POB had no excuse, as an ex-police officer POB knew or can reasonable have been expected to know not to compromise his position, but he did and actively so. Even if he apologised later and I don't remember it, it is irrelevant, his integrity was gone and he should of been sacked, instead Dickenson was belittled by NZ supporters and not long after retired. As I said no moral high ground. Ironic given Dickenson is also an ex-cop.

 

[Bullrush]

1. No strictly speaking they did not, but they approached POB. But unlike Peyper who didn't seek any contact with Chieka, POB actively compromised his position by accepting the ABs invitation and subsequently making official statements (official because he was the chief of Refs so any comment is official) against Dickenson which were wrong in fact. When did POB publicly apologise to Dickenson?

I would not want an apology from Peyper, as IMO he didn't do anything wrong. Cheika approached him. Chieka should be apoligising to Peyper for putting him in such a position, and to SANZAR/Rugby for compromising the perception people may have of Peyper. The visit no matter how polite and how narrow the matters discussed was very very ill advised. I certainly would be expecting a person of empathy to acknowledge the position Peyper was placed in.

2. That leads into Peyper's reaction when the coach of a team knocks on his door. This is a person with whom Peyper we can expect he has had extensive previous contact. He is taken off guard and asked a question "Hey Jaco, what was that last scrum about mate?" "Oh yeah I told him to use it.." etc etc. If somebody you know reasonably well knocks on your door and you aren't a lawyer or a cop you aren't experienced in the need to maintain distance in some circumstances. I feel for him as he was broadsided and has now been censured for being approached and not telling Chieka to P.O.

That is where POB had no excuse, as an ex-police officer POB knew or can reasonable have been expected to know not to compromise his position, but he did and actively so. Even if he apologised later and I don't remember it, it is irrelevant, his integrity was gone and he should of been sacked, instead Dickenson was belittled by NZ supporters and not long after retired. As I said no moral high ground. Ironic given Dickenson is also an ex-cop.

So the short story is 'No', the ABs didn't break any Laws. POB actually didn't break any Laws I'm aware of either - I'm pretty sure part of his role would have been discussions with all teams and he wouldn't have declined any approaches. Google the incident and you'll find POB's apology whether you acknowledge it or not.

Could be that this incident was also a factor in POB losing the job not long after. But if I remember correctly, it was a totally new role that he went into and so there were no precedents or anything like that for him to follow. His public dressing down of Dickinson was wrong. (Whether he was wrong on the rulings is a totally different matter which is irrelevant).

Peyper was wrong - simple as that. Receiving stolen goods is a crime just like stealing them is - especially if you're a cop.

 

[Gnostic]

And Bullrush you obviously have little conception of how the maintenance of integrity works and WTF does Stolen goods have anything to do with this. Maintenance of the perception of integrity can be compromised when no offence takes place. The fact that you (and virtually no other NZ poster) can accept that POB compromised his proves it for me, just as Peyper did nothing wrong except not having the presence of mind or experience to tell Chieka to go away.

Can you accept that even if Chieka was told to go away Peyper's position was still compromised, and people such as those questioning the penalty turn around in the second half (which isn't that unusual I have found) would still be bleating about him being swayed by the visit. In that case would Peyper have done anything wrong and worthy of censure?

POB's backhanded half apology was only for Breaching the rules and publicly criticising Dickenson. His actions still compromised Dickenson, after a private meeting with a team at the centre of the criticism in the team hotel. It doesn't get much worse than that, for compromising one's integrity without actually getting caught with your hand in the bickie tin.

My last word on the matter, Chieka did wrong to go there regardless of intent. He placed Peyper in a bad position that regardless of action from that point.
Chieka has been warned. Peyper should not have been IMO.

POB should have been sacked immediately following his half apology.

 

[Quick Hands]

Aren't match threads only supposed to be about the match in question?

 

[FrankLind]

I think he should have received some kind of real sanction. Not 6 months - but something more than another warning.
Just "popping his head in" - fuck off - he broke the rules and he knew it.
Serial boundary crosser.

 

[Bullrush]

Of course he did.

A number of newspapers now reporting that Cheika got fined for doing almost the same thing in 2011 in Europe.

To come out and say 'He didn't even know the rule existed' is just BS.
I don't think he should get 6 months either but what do you do?

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Coach Rennie seems to be going with the precedent set thing too

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/veitch-on-sport/audio/dave-rennie-cheika-situation/

 

[Dismal Pillock]

NZ Herald spewin

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

it was out and out cheating - an obvious attempt to influence the outcome of the game by manipulating the mindset of the referee.

Sanzar's ridiculous claim it had no impact on the way the game was handled was arguably the weakest response in professional history. The penalty count was eight one to the Blues in one half - nine-one against in the second half. People aren't stupid.