Bledisloe 1
-
@nzzp I’m here all week…
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe 1:
@nzzp I’m here all week…
Modern times, I've got to damn well check. Crazy eh
-
So Rennie claims that WR supports them on the time wasting call. Really? Care to share what they said Dave?
-
So Rennie claims that WR supports them on the time wasting call. Really? Care to share what they said Dave?
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
So Rennie claims that WR supports them on time wasting
Is that really a surprise...
-
So Rennie claims that WR supports them on the time wasting call. Really? Care to share what they said Dave?
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
So Rennie claims that WR supports them on the time wasting call. Really? Care to share what they said Dave?
"We understand your concerns".
-
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
I am same, he misses the games so that's how it is. Can not see any problem at all really.
-
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
Yup, Steve Hansen and his pet, SBW.
-
In the most contentious and controversial refereeing decision of the year, we have to rely on the aggrieved coach’s second-hand version of what World Rugby has said about Australia’s complaint. If that doesn’t tell you how corrupt and opaque the governance structures (or lack of them) are in rugby union, nothing will. Where is the official WR statement? Is anyone in charge here? Or are they all too busy covering their arses and protecting their expense accounts to comment? Of course Rennie is going to say that. He’s like the kid who comes home from school and tells his parents the teacher has given him the week off from doing homework.
-
In the most contentious and controversial refereeing decision of the year, we have to rely on the aggrieved coach’s second-hand version of what World Rugby has said about Australia’s complaint. If that doesn’t tell you how corrupt and opaque the governance structures (or lack of them) are in rugby union, nothing will. Where is the official WR statement? Is anyone in charge here? Or are they all too busy covering their arses and protecting their expense accounts to comment? Of course Rennie is going to say that. He’s like the kid who comes home from school and tells his parents the teacher has given him the week off from doing homework.
@His-Bobness said in Bledisloe 1:
In the most contentious and controversial refereeing decision of the year, we have to rely on the aggrieved coach’s second-hand version of what World Rugby has said about Australia’s complaint. If that doesn’t tell you how corrupt and opaque the governance structures (or lack of them) are in rugby union, nothing will. Where is the official WR statement? Is anyone in charge here? Or are they all too busy covering their arses and protecting their expense accounts to comment? Of course Rennie is going to say that. He’s like the kid who comes home from school and tells his parents the teacher has given him the week off from doing homework.
Trouble is that WR have a great history of opening their mouth only to fill it with a shoe.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
I am same, he misses the games so that's how it is. Can not see any problem at all really.
@Dan54 said in Bledisloe 1:
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
I am same, he misses the games so that's how it is. Can not see any problem at all really.
I think the issue is not the game level but the seemingly cynical approach of selection for that game.
It was great timing for RA to have the 'loophole' available.
BTW the rules are that there are level groups and in this case the International Representative side and the designated second side are in the same grouping. The game itself isn't part of the equation hence the game of three halves scenario.
But yes, we used the same loophole so cant really complain unless there is evidence that he was only added to the squad after the foul play.
-
@Dan54 said in Bledisloe 1:
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
I am same, he misses the games so that's how it is. Can not see any problem at all really.
I think the issue is not the game level but the seemingly cynical approach of selection for that game.
It was great timing for RA to have the 'loophole' available.
BTW the rules are that there are level groups and in this case the International Representative side and the designated second side are in the same grouping. The game itself isn't part of the equation hence the game of three halves scenario.
But yes, we used the same loophole so cant really complain unless there is evidence that he was only added to the squad after the foul play.
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@Dan54 said in Bledisloe 1:
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
I am same, he misses the games so that's how it is. Can not see any problem at all really.
I think the issue is not the game level but the seemingly cynical approach of selection for that game.
It was great timing for RA to have the 'loophole' available.
BTW the rules are that there are level groups and in this case the International Representative side and the designated second side are in the same grouping. The game itself isn't part of the equation hence the game of three halves scenario.
But yes, we used the same loophole so cant really complain unless there is evidence that he was only added to the squad after the foul play.
And I believe they didn't use games , but actually gave date he was suspended until anyway mate.
-
In the most contentious and controversial refereeing decision of the year, we have to rely on the aggrieved coach’s second-hand version of what World Rugby has said about Australia’s complaint. If that doesn’t tell you how corrupt and opaque the governance structures (or lack of them) are in rugby union, nothing will. Where is the official WR statement? Is anyone in charge here? Or are they all too busy covering their arses and protecting their expense accounts to comment? Of course Rennie is going to say that. He’s like the kid who comes home from school and tells his parents the teacher has given him the week off from doing homework.
@His-Bobness said in Bledisloe 1:
In the most contentious and controversial refereeing decision of the year, we have to rely on the aggrieved coach’s second-hand version of what World Rugby has said about Australia’s complaint. If that doesn’t tell you how corrupt and opaque the governance structures (or lack of them) are in rugby union, nothing will. Where is the official WR statement? Is anyone in charge here? Or are they all too busy covering their arses and protecting their expense accounts to comment? Of course Rennie is going to say that. He’s like the kid who comes home from school and tells his parents the teacher has given him the week off from doing homework.
Hi Bob, can you pint me to report(s) where Rennie said this? Ta much
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@Dan54 said in Bledisloe 1:
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
I am same, he misses the games so that's how it is. Can not see any problem at all really.
I think the issue is not the game level but the seemingly cynical approach of selection for that game.
It was great timing for RA to have the 'loophole' available.
BTW the rules are that there are level groups and in this case the International Representative side and the designated second side are in the same grouping. The game itself isn't part of the equation hence the game of three halves scenario.
But yes, we used the same loophole so cant really complain unless there is evidence that he was only added to the squad after the foul play.
And I believe they didn't use games , but actually gave date he was suspended until anyway mate.
@Dan54 said in Bledisloe 1:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@Dan54 said in Bledisloe 1:
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 1:
ABs have counted game of 3 havles for bans so i have no issue with Aus A games counting.
I am same, he misses the games so that's how it is. Can not see any problem at all really.
I think the issue is not the game level but the seemingly cynical approach of selection for that game.
It was great timing for RA to have the 'loophole' available.
BTW the rules are that there are level groups and in this case the International Representative side and the designated second side are in the same grouping. The game itself isn't part of the equation hence the game of three halves scenario.
But yes, we used the same loophole so cant really complain unless there is evidence that he was only added to the squad after the foul play.
And I believe they didn't use games , but actually gave date he was suspended until anyway mate.
They do but the process is that they provide a date calculated on eligible games counted.
They are provided with a list of games at the group level that he would be eligible/likely for selection in. eg they wouldn't count the Oz A games if he wasn't in the squad and therefore the date would go well into the EOYT -
I think it's in this one, there's a couple of the roar https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/09/22/mouthing-off-rennie-reveals-riekos-haka-disrespect-meltdown-wanted-newell-cited-over-sio-injury/
-
@His-Bobness said in Bledisloe 1:
In the most contentious and controversial refereeing decision of the year, we have to rely on the aggrieved coach’s second-hand version of what World Rugby has said about Australia’s complaint. If that doesn’t tell you how corrupt and opaque the governance structures (or lack of them) are in rugby union, nothing will. Where is the official WR statement? Is anyone in charge here? Or are they all too busy covering their arses and protecting their expense accounts to comment? Of course Rennie is going to say that. He’s like the kid who comes home from school and tells his parents the teacher has given him the week off from doing homework.
Hi Bob, can you pint me to report(s) where Rennie said this? Ta much
-
"We've obviously been in contact with World Rugby around it and they agreed with our concerns," Rennie said.
They could mean so many things. eg we agree that you are concerned about the language barrier contributing to understanding the situation or we agree that a situation has happened which has changed the perception of a great game.
Doesn't mean that we agree you were robbed. -
Rennie must be under huge pressure.
9th in the world and should really be staring down the barrel of another thumping by all rights.
Injuries have hit them hard. And their depth is just bad in general. They've done well to almost win the series against England and still be in the RC right up until the last game.
-
-
"We've obviously been in contact with World Rugby around it and they agreed with our concerns," Rennie said.
They could mean so many things. eg we agree that you are concerned about the language barrier contributing to understanding the situation or we agree that a situation has happened which has changed the perception of a great game.
Doesn't mean that we agree you were robbed.@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
"We've obviously been in contact with World Rugby around it and they agreed with our concerns," Rennie said.
They could mean so many things. eg we agree that you are concerned about the language barrier contributing to understanding the situation or we agree that a situation has happened which has changed the perception of a great game.
Doesn't mean that we agree you were robbed.Or they just agreed that Aussies concerns were Aussies concerns.
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
"We've obviously been in contact with World Rugby around it and they agreed with our concerns," Rennie said.
They could mean so many things. eg we agree that you are concerned about the language barrier contributing to understanding the situation or we agree that a situation has happened which has changed the perception of a great game.
Doesn't mean that we agree you were robbed.Or they just agreed that Aussies concerns were Aussies concerns.
@Bones
WR: yes, yes we agree, that is pretty harsh, buuuuuuuttt, Foley wa....
DR: Nice to see we are in agreement
