Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
the odds were way different. higher entry point, bigger reduction for a guilty plea, no priors
Farrell probably took one look and knew that even with a plea he wasn't getting a reduction, so his best course of action was to get it scrubbed. That's different odds.
This is elite professional sport, there is no room for sentiment.
@mariner4life TBF most seem to take the early guilty plea to try and get a lesser sentence, and I would guess plenty feel they weren't guilty, but the weight of a longer sentence if the fickle inconsistent judiciary system sees it that way...
I mean the Farrell one is a prime example, based on the number of head contacts leading to suspensions over the past 3 or 4 years, I very much doubt anyone would have thought he'd get away with less than 3 weeks, let alone rescinded!
-
Exactly. When you are probably looking at 3 or 4 weeks with a guilty plea. Or 4 or 5 with if you roll the dice and lose, then you probably roll the dice.
Val Holmes did it in the NRL. Looking at 3 weeks with the plea, 4 if he fought it and lost, but that extra week was not a huge price to pay if there was a chance you get zero. OF probably did the same math. Val lost. Owen won. Good on him.
Bad for rugby, but good for Owen.
-
Exactly. When you are probably looking at 3 or 4 weeks with a guilty plea. Or 4 or 5 with if you roll the dice and lose, then you probably roll the dice.
Val Holmes did it in the NRL. Looking at 3 weeks with the plea, 4 if he fought it and lost, but that extra week was not a huge price to pay if there was a chance you get zero. OF probably did the same math. Val lost. Owen won. Good on him.
Bad for rugby, but good for Owen.
@mariner4life it is all a bit sad really that whole dance they do;
Guilty, me so sorry...
oh cool, halve your time then.
-
@mariner4life it is all a bit sad really that whole dance they do;
Guilty, me so sorry...
oh cool, halve your time then.
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@mariner4life it is all a bit sad really that whole dance they do;
Guilty, me so sorry...
oh cool, halve your time then.
Happens in real life courts too when judges take guilty plea and remorse into account for sentencing - always struck me as odd, bit hard to be remorseful if you're actually innocent
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@mariner4life it is all a bit sad really that whole dance they do;
Guilty, me so sorry...
oh cool, halve your time then.
Happens in real life courts too when judges take guilty plea and remorse into account for sentencing - always struck me as odd, bit hard to be remorseful if you're actually innocent
-
@voodoo and easy to be remorseful when you have been caught.
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup news:
@voodoo and easy to be remorseful when you have been caught.
it's the only time i am remorseful
-
the odds were way different. higher entry point, bigger reduction for a guilty plea, no priors
Farrell probably took one look and knew that even with a plea he wasn't getting a reduction, so his best course of action was to get it scrubbed. That's different odds.
This is elite professional sport, there is no room for sentiment.
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup news:
This is elite professional sport, there is no room for sentiment.
At elite level he could be expected to tackle correctly
-
@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?@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@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?Do we know who the three Aussies judiciary were?
-
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@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?Do we know who the three Aussies judiciary were?
@Nevorian said in Rugby World Cup news:
three Aussies
"The all-Australian panel of lawyer Adam Casselden, and former Wallabies John Langford and David Croft"
-
The GOAT of referees has spoken
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/nigel-owens-owen-farrell-tackle-27536840 -
Nigel makes sense to me.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/15utt1c/france_australia_match_under_threat_of_being/
According to french journal Rugbyrama, Rugby Australia are demanding money from the French rugby federation, and are threatening to cancel the match.
Indeed, it seems that the last president of the FFR has orally promised about one million euros and a % of the TV rights for the match. Of course, it was orally promised. No contracts, no signings anywhere, not even an actual planning for this.
The current president of the FFR is doing everything he can to calm RA, and protect the interests of France.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/15utt1c/france_australia_match_under_threat_of_being/
According to french journal Rugbyrama, Rugby Australia are demanding money from the French rugby federation, and are threatening to cancel the match.
Indeed, it seems that the last president of the FFR has orally promised about one million euros and a % of the TV rights for the match. Of course, it was orally promised. No contracts, no signings anywhere, not even an actual planning for this.
The current president of the FFR is doing everything he can to calm RA, and protect the interests of France.
@Daffy-Jaffy I love that RA always try to one up NZR in the shithouse management stakes.
"But we pinky promised!"
-
@Nevorian said in Rugby World Cup news:
three Aussies
"The all-Australian panel of lawyer Adam Casselden, and former Wallabies John Langford and David Croft"
@nostrildamus said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Nevorian said in Rugby World Cup news:
three Aussies
"The all-Australian panel of lawyer Adam Casselden, and former Wallabies John Langford and David Croft"
How long before someone returns the favour on Farrell
-
Fuck Owen Farrell, fuck the RFU, and fuck that bloom of a disciplinary panel.
Farrell has a long and ugly track record of this kind of horror tackle. He's been to tackle school, and obviously flunked it because he's learned nothing and has no remorse. His only defence is that he's been allowed to get away with it for so long, why should he take it seriously now?
The RFU's decision to appeal and presumably pay a small fortune for a KC to hypnotise the rubes on the panel into imaging they saw some mitigation was a shocker. There might be no room for sentiment in elite sport, but there is room for integrity. The RFU is talking a big game about tackle safety in the community game, and this completely undermines that message and makes them look shameless. Just because they could, doesn't mean they should have. And of course it's backfired - now the whole debacle is running on longer, when they could have just put it behind them and planned for having Farrell back for the knock-out stages (pun intended).
And the panel has been made to look like a bunch of fools, accepting some mitigation that Blind Willie McTell could see is non-existent. A month out from the highlight of the rugby calender, they've made a mockery of the whole process, undermined a ref and TMO who made a correct decision, undermined the whole bunker review process, undermined the message that WR take dangerous tackles seriously, and given the impression that any union who can afford top, top lawyers can write their own rules.
Fuck the lot of them. I hope WR's appeal succeeds, Farrell gets the substantial ban he deserves, and everyone can learn from this sordid affair and avoid it happening again.
(Bloom is the collective name for jellyfish)
-
Well said
-
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Rugby World Cup news:
FFS! This Farrell shite is boring as f%#k. The inconsistency of the rulings isn't Farrell's fault. Let the lad play and attack the admin.
Well it's not the admin even, they set laws to allow him to be penalised etc, but lawyers etc got involved.
-
Well the preparations of one entire side of the draw are just going swimmingly
