Bledisloe 2
-
@canefan said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Swain faces the judiciary tonight.
Tupaea is likely out for two to three months, so I hope he gets a lengthy ban.
Nothing less than 6 weeks will suffice
i can't wait for teh guilty plea/good bloke reduction
totally ignoring the earlier ban for headbutting
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe 2:
@canefan said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Swain faces the judiciary tonight.
Tupaea is likely out for two to three months, so I hope he gets a lengthy ban.
Nothing less than 6 weeks will suffice
i can't wait for teh guilty plea/good bloke reduction
totally ignoring the earlier ban for headbutting
Has Rennie come out yet and said “he’s a good [insert religious denomination]”
-
@booboo said in Bledisloe 2:
@Bones said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants said in Bledisloe 2:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe 2:
@canefan said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Swain faces the judiciary tonight.
Tupaea is likely out for two to three months, so I hope he gets a lengthy ban.
Nothing less than 6 weeks will suffice
i can't wait for teh guilty plea/good bloke reduction
totally ignoring the earlier ban for headbutting
A throw away line in an Ozzie article implied he was going to fight it
I can see why. He could get off.
OJ did
'if the ruck don't be hit, you must acquit'?
@nzzp said in Bledisloe 2:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 2:
@Bones said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants said in Bledisloe 2:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe 2:
@canefan said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Swain faces the judiciary tonight.
Tupaea is likely out for two to three months, so I hope he gets a lengthy ban.
Nothing less than 6 weeks will suffice
i can't wait for teh guilty plea/good bloke reduction
totally ignoring the earlier ban for headbutting
A throw away line in an Ozzie article implied he was going to fight it
I can see why. He could get off.
OJ did
'if the ruck don't be hit, you must acquit'?
Ladies and gentlemen, let me show you...an All Black player not supporting his own weight. It he wasn't leaning forward over balanced, he would have gone backwards and therefore not boynced the unco fuck off.
-
the more i think about it the more i kind of like the idea of he cant play until QT can again
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
the more i think about it the more i kind of like the idea of he cant play until QT can again
I get that outcome shouldn't cloud judgement on action but I do think that once found guilty the consequences should be taken into account
-
what was the outcome of the hearing? I haven't seen anything on the brief google I did earlier this morning.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
the more i think about it the more i kind of like the idea of he cant play until QT can again
I get that outcome shouldn't cloud judgement on action but I do think that once found guilty the consequences should be taken into account
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
the more i think about it the more i kind of like the idea of he cant play until QT can again
I get that outcome shouldn't cloud judgement on action but I do think that once found guilty the consequences should be taken into account
agreed, and i think thats also where id differentiate between acts like this and someone that takes out someone in the air because they were watching that ball...negligent rather than deliberate
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
the more i think about it the more i kind of like the idea of he cant play until QT can again
I get that outcome shouldn't cloud judgement on action but I do think that once found guilty the consequences should be taken into account
agreed, and i think thats also where id differentiate between acts like this and someone that takes out someone in the air because they were watching that ball...negligent rather than deliberate
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
the more i think about it the more i kind of like the idea of he cant play until QT can again
I get that outcome shouldn't cloud judgement on action but I do think that once found guilty the consequences should be taken into account
agreed, and i think thats also where id differentiate between acts like this and someone that takes out someone in the air because they were watching that ball...negligent rather than deliberate
I don't actually think that he deliberately tried to injure but was reckless. He had opportunity to not take the risk.
Given that he had already smacked QT in the head/neck with a shoulder cleanout he went in for a second crack and did not look to be playing with a clear head.Recklessness does not excuse though. Like drink driving, you don't set out to have a crash but are culpable if one happens.
What is missing (or is possibly in the 'levels' ) is the consequence of being reckless. Again, using the drink driving example, driving under the influence and causing injury to others is more serious a charge than just causing material damage.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
the more i think about it the more i kind of like the idea of he cant play until QT can again
I get that outcome shouldn't cloud judgement on action but I do think that once found guilty the consequences should be taken into account
agreed, and i think thats also where id differentiate between acts like this and someone that takes out someone in the air because they were watching that ball...negligent rather than deliberate
I don't actually think that he deliberately tried to injure but was reckless. He had opportunity to not take the risk.
Given that he had already smacked QT in the head/neck with a shoulder cleanout he went in for a second crack and did not look to be playing with a clear head.Recklessness does not excuse though. Like drink driving, you don't set out to have a crash but are culpable if one happens.
What is missing (or is possibly in the 'levels' ) is the consequence of being reckless. Again, using the drink driving example, driving under the influence and causing injury to others is more serious a charge than just causing material damage.
@Crucial no, i would say very very few people actually think...im going to injury this guy
I have always just seen a difference between
"im going to tackle this knee"
and
"im watching the ball....watching...watching...of shit where did you come from?"
-
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
https://twitter.com/ChristypDoran/status/1571985162531110912?s=20&t=nXKu3etnpPDBcLpgz8uS3w
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
-
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
https://twitter.com/ChristypDoran/status/1571985162531110912?s=20&t=nXKu3etnpPDBcLpgz8uS3w
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.
Still, bureaucracy not in tune with the game requirements. Maybe when RA proposed moving the game this was a known outcome and they took the risk.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.
Still, bureaucracy not in tune with the game requirements. Maybe when RA proposed moving the game this was a known outcome and they took the risk.
@Crucial If he had been found "not guilty" on Monday (citing dismissed), he would have been available. All this points at a "guilty" verdict from the foul play committee on Monday, with Swain/Rugby Australia opting to go to a full judicial hearing on Wednesday, hoping to get another outcome.
-
@Crucial If he had been found "not guilty" on Monday (citing dismissed), he would have been available. All this points at a "guilty" verdict from the foul play committee on Monday, with Swain/Rugby Australia opting to go to a full judicial hearing on Wednesday, hoping to get another outcome.
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial If he had been found "not guilty" on Monday (citing dismissed), he would have been available. All this points at a "guilty" verdict from the foul play committee on Monday, with Swain/Rugby Australia opting to go to a full judicial hearing on Wednesday, hoping to get another outcome.
I hope the silly fluffybunny gets 6-8 weeks. Yes he's got talent but fuck me like Wright has the brain of a pea.
-
I wonder which section he's been cited under.
I can only see three sections that could be used:
There was no head contact, so no minimum mid-week range starting point.A lot will depend on the degree of recklessness or intent the judiciary thinks was involved in Swines' actions.
As to possible reductions: he won't get the full 50% reduction because of his red card for head butting. So if the starting point is 6 weeks, he'd probably get 4. Of course, it also depends on whether he admits to what he's been cited for. Is he fighting that, or just the sanction? If he doesn't admit he's done anything wrong, that also means less deduction.
I genuinely hope the starting point is at least 10 weeks, so he'd get at least 6 weeks suspension, but that would mean they have to start at a top-end entry point. Will they?
Edited to add that there's no reason why he can't be charged under more than one provision.
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
I wonder which section he's been cited under.
I can only see three sections that could be used:
There was no head contact, so no minimum mid-week range starting point.A lot will depend on the degree of recklessness or intent the judiciary thinks was involved in Swines' actions.
As to possible reductions: he won't get the full 50% reduction because of his red card for head butting. So if the starting point is 6 weeks, he'd probably get 4. Of course, it also depends on whether he admits to what he's been cited for. Is he fighting that, or just the sanction? If he doesn't admit he's done anything wrong, that also means less deduction.
I genuinely hope the starting point is at least 10 weeks, so he'd get at least 6 weeks suspension, but that would mean they have to start at a top-end entry point. Will they?
Edited to add that there's no reason why he can't be charged under more than one provision.
Judiciary is on Wed. Apparently last night was the Foul Play Committee which referred the matter to the Judiciary rather than dismissing it.
From "The Roar" - The Judicial Committee for the Hearing will be Andre Oosthuizen SC (Chair), De Wet Barry and José Luis Rolandi and it will be held via video conference on Wednesday at 5:00pm (AEST).
-
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
I wonder which section he's been cited under.
I can only see three sections that could be used:
There was no head contact, so no minimum mid-week range starting point.A lot will depend on the degree of recklessness or intent the judiciary thinks was involved in Swines' actions.
As to possible reductions: he won't get the full 50% reduction because of his red card for head butting. So if the starting point is 6 weeks, he'd probably get 4. Of course, it also depends on whether he admits to what he's been cited for. Is he fighting that, or just the sanction? If he doesn't admit he's done anything wrong, that also means less deduction.
I genuinely hope the starting point is at least 10 weeks, so he'd get at least 6 weeks suspension, but that would mean they have to start at a top-end entry point. Will they?
Edited to add that there's no reason why he can't be charged under more than one provision.
Judiciary is on Wed. Apparently last night was the Foul Play Committee which referred the matter to the Judiciary rather than dismissing it.
From "The Roar" - The Judicial Committee for the Hearing will be Andre Oosthuizen SC (Chair), De Wet Barry and José Luis Rolandi and it will be held via video conference on Wednesday at 5:00pm (AEST).
@TheMojoman said in Bledisloe 2:
From "The Roar" - The Judicial Committee for the Hearing will be Andre Oosthuizen SC (Chair), De Wet Barry and José Luis Rolandi and it will be held via video conference on Wednesday at 5:00pm (AEST).
Do the Wallabies / Swain know any Sth African QC’s…
-
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.
Still, bureaucracy not in tune with the game requirements. Maybe when RA proposed moving the game this was a known outcome and they took the risk.
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.
Still, bureaucracy not in tune with the game requirements. Maybe when RA proposed moving the game this was a known outcome and they took the risk.
You run the gauntlet with this stuff in any event when there are back to back games in consecutive weekends.
And let’s not forget the Lauaki debacle at the 2007 RWC…
-
-
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:
Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh? -
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:
Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh?@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:
Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh?You reckon? I think there is a pretty general consensus around here that SB has surprised to the upside this season, and is locked (sorry) in to a position in the 23. I'd go further and say that I reckon 95% of posters would have him as the 3rd lock, and many would even have him in the top 2 at the moment as BBBR works his way back. Go further again, and I'd guess that there is even a significant cohort that would pick SB at 6 if the SB/BBBR duo are fit and starting.
Aside from Sami who is clearly #1 (sorry Jase, we know you agree), what's the competition for #2? Ardie for the lovers out there, then daylight to SW I guess?
