Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
George Moala got given a ten week ban.
https://x.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1691447849089908738?s=46
-
-
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
-
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
@Nevorian said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
It's very disappointing!
There could have been a parade of white broncos through Paris!
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
Who elects / assembles the disciplinary panel?
The Government of the country in which the incident took place?
Or World Rugby?
-
The French hate the English anyway, maybe the crowd can give him the Quade Cooper treatment and boo him everytime he touches the ball?
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
The French hate the English anyway, maybe the crowd can give him the Quade Cooper treatment and boo him everytime he touches the ball?
Hopefully the Irish will start this weekend
Would love to see the look on his Dad's face if it does happen
-
They have set a dangerous precedent now for the world cup just around the corner,
Any high tackles and people will be expecting leniency using this as the most recent example ,
Can of worms
@kiwiinmelb said in Rugby World Cup news:
They have set a dangerous precedent now for the world cup just around the corner,
Any high tackles and people will be expecting leniency using this as the most recent example ,
Can of worms
No, precedent had already been set, it is just so often ignored by the judiciary. Its like they never look at other decisions, and start from scratch every time, bizarre. Nothing has changed about the results of these panels
-
World Rugby distancing themselves from the decision already. Pro-World Rugby sources are saying the independent panel was put together by Six Nations Rugby. Utter farce!
-
World Rugby distancing themselves from the decision already. Pro-World Rugby sources are saying the independent panel was put together by Six Nations Rugby. Utter farce!
@sparky said in Rugby World Cup news:
World Rugby distancing themselves from the decision already. Pro-World Rugby sources are saying the independent panel was put together by Six Nations Rugby. Utter farce!
If 6N put that together then you would have assumed that Farrell would have been banned
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Rugby World Cup news:
They have set a dangerous precedent now for the world cup just around the corner,
Any high tackles and people will be expecting leniency using this as the most recent example ,
Can of worms
No, precedent had already been set, it is just so often ignored by the judiciary. Its like they never look at other decisions, and start from scratch every time, bizarre. Nothing has changed about the results of these panels
@Machpants yeah problem is no 2 incidents are identical so hard to say a precedent has been set by this or previous hearings, but as I said earlier, the key is to not plead guilty anymore.
Given they often term as foul play rather than accidental, in my mind foul play is filth or being a fluffybunny, whereas accidental is, well, accidental.
Words.
-
@Machpants yeah problem is no 2 incidents are identical so hard to say a precedent has been set by this or previous hearings, but as I said earlier, the key is to not plead guilty anymore.
Given they often term as foul play rather than accidental, in my mind foul play is filth or being a fluffybunny, whereas accidental is, well, accidental.
Words.
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
Words
Definitely. Is it accidental if the perpetrator is being careless/reckless?
-
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
The French hate the English anyway, maybe the crowd can give him the Quade Cooper treatment and boo him everytime he touches the ball?
Hopefully the Irish will start this weekend
Would love to see the look on his Dad's face if it does happen
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby World Cup news:
@canefan said in Rugby World Cup news:
The French hate the English anyway, maybe the crowd can give him the Quade Cooper treatment and boo him everytime he touches the ball?
Hopefully the Irish will start this weekend
Would love to see the look on his Dad's face if it does happen
Outraged
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
Who elects / assembles the disciplinary panel?
The Government of the country in which the incident took place?
Or World Rugby?
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
Who elects / assembles the disciplinary panel?
The Government of the country in which the incident took place?
Or World Rugby?
Have no idea Mike. I assume there is some kind of board or something.
Never really something I thought about. There must be someway it done, is there a worldwide group of names of legal people and ex players etc? -
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
Words
Definitely. Is it accidental if the perpetrator is being careless/reckless?
-
@Bones well I would prefer to be charged with catekess driving than reckless driving...anyway we have had this discussion before so I'll stop now.
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Bones well I would prefer to be charged with catekess driving than reckless driving...anyway we have had this discussion before so I'll stop now.
I’d hate to be charged with catekess driving too. Sounds bad!
-
catekess: carelessness, but with less care.
