Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
+60
stub
poissonrouge
Cyril
cakeordeath
LondonTiger
Gooseberry
eirebilly
Mad for Chelsea
englandglory4ever
toml
Barney McGrew did it
MrsP
EST
No 7&1/2
Sgt_Pooly
fa0019
Maine man
asoreleftshoulder
Hood83
theslosty
Engine#4
Scottrf
LeinsterFan4life
AFewTooManyKnocks
Heaf
mid_gen
Rugby Fan
Taylorman
clivemcl
emack2
uncle_nigel
profitius
doctor_grey
cascough
Gwlad
Not grey and not a ghost
majesticimperialman
The Great Aukster
Rory_Gallagher
Pete330v2
geoff999rugby
Big
chewed_mintie
mikey_dragon
Pot Hale
aucklandlaurie
marty2086
lostinwales
GunsGermsV2
brennomac
SecretFly
thebandwagonsociety
wolfball
Geen sport voor watjes
rodders
Golden
the-goon
carpet baboon
rapidsnowman
George Carlin
64 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union :: International
Page 20 of 20
Page 20 of 20 • 1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20
Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
First topic message reminder :
IRELAND v NEW ZEALAND
19 November 2016
KO: 17:30
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
Live on Sky Sports 2
Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Mathieu Raynal (France), Ian Davies (Wales)
Television match official: Jon Mason (Wales)
Assessor: Chris White (England)
A. Head to Head
29 Played 29
1 Won 27
1 Drawn 1
27 Lost 1
310 Points 812
B. Recent Form
5 November 2016
Soldier Field, Chicago IL
40–29 to Ireland
24 November 2013
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
22 – 24 to New Zealand
23 June 2012
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton
60 – 0 to New Zealand
16 June 2012
Rugby League Park, Christchurch
22 – 19 to New Zealand
9 June 2012
Eden Park, Auckland
42 – 10 to New Zealand
20 November 2010
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
18 – 38 to New Zealand
C. Teams
IRELAND
R Kearney; A Trimble, J Payne, R Henshaw, S Zebo; J Sexton, C Murray; J McGrath, R Best, T Furlong; D Toner, D Ryan; CJ Stander, S O'Brien, J Heaslip.
Replacements: S Cronin, C Healy, F Bealham, I Henderson, J van der Flier, K Marmion, P Jackson, G Ringrose.
NEW ZEALAND
B Smith; I Dagg, M Fekitoa, A Lienert-Brown, J Savea; B Barrett, A Smith; J Moody, D Coles, O Franks; B Retallick, S Whitelock; L Squire, S Can, K Read (capt).
Replacements: C Taylor, W Crockett, C Faumuina, S Barrett, A Savea, TJ Perenara, A Cruden, W Naholo.
IRELAND v NEW ZEALAND
19 November 2016
KO: 17:30
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
Live on Sky Sports 2
Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Mathieu Raynal (France), Ian Davies (Wales)
Television match official: Jon Mason (Wales)
Assessor: Chris White (England)
A. Head to Head
29 Played 29
1 Won 27
1 Drawn 1
27 Lost 1
310 Points 812
B. Recent Form
5 November 2016
Soldier Field, Chicago IL
40–29 to Ireland
24 November 2013
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
22 – 24 to New Zealand
23 June 2012
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton
60 – 0 to New Zealand
16 June 2012
Rugby League Park, Christchurch
22 – 19 to New Zealand
9 June 2012
Eden Park, Auckland
42 – 10 to New Zealand
20 November 2010
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
18 – 38 to New Zealand
C. Teams
IRELAND
R Kearney; A Trimble, J Payne, R Henshaw, S Zebo; J Sexton, C Murray; J McGrath, R Best, T Furlong; D Toner, D Ryan; CJ Stander, S O'Brien, J Heaslip.
Replacements: S Cronin, C Healy, F Bealham, I Henderson, J van der Flier, K Marmion, P Jackson, G Ringrose.
NEW ZEALAND
B Smith; I Dagg, M Fekitoa, A Lienert-Brown, J Savea; B Barrett, A Smith; J Moody, D Coles, O Franks; B Retallick, S Whitelock; L Squire, S Can, K Read (capt).
Replacements: C Taylor, W Crockett, C Faumuina, S Barrett, A Savea, TJ Perenara, A Cruden, W Naholo.
Last edited by George Carlin on Sat 19 Nov 2016, 12:35 pm; edited 3 times in total
George Carlin- Admin
- Posts : 15729
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : KSA
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
What was marty right about three pages ago? That the findings of the commission are wrong?
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental (judging on intent), otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, although not intentional, but that's just me
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
The Panel IS.................. .....don't be impatient..........................it's......................
WRONG!!!
WRONG!!!
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Okay...let's get wikileaks info up on this here panel as a starter.
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
I'm not. I'm giving my opinion that the panel is wrong, and I think it's wrong because their judgement isn't based on fact, but supposition (intent or lack of).
Contrast that with the Fekitoa ruling .....
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
I'm not. I'm giving my opinion that the panel is wrong, and I think it's wrong because their judgement isn't based on fact, but supposition (intent or lack of).
Contrast that with the Fekitoa ruling .....
Because you are arguing for no other reason than for the sake of arguing, the difference in hearings is not obvious to you, the Cane hearing was a defended hearing, whereas the Fekitoa hearing was a guilty plea, submissions in mitigation and the determining of sanction (if any) completly different types of hearings.
Foster did say that the ABs appreciated that Fekitoa got a fair hearing.
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
I'm not. I'm giving my opinion that the panel is wrong, and I think it's wrong because their judgement isn't based on fact, but supposition (intent or lack of).
Contrast that with the Fekitoa ruling .....
Because you are arguing for no other reason than for the sake of arguing, the difference in hearings is not obvious to you, the Cane hearing was a defended hearing, whereas the Fekitoa hearing was a guilty plea, submissions in mitigation and the determining of sanction (if any) completly different types of hearings.
Foster did say that the ABs appreciated that Fekitoa got a fair hearing.
Read deeper, Laurie. Fekitoa did not admit guilt. He admitted to a yellow card offense, but denied a red card offense.
Yes, I'm arguing for the sake of it, but I will always argue my points fairly and honestly.
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
I'm not. I'm giving my opinion that the panel is wrong, and I think it's wrong because their judgement isn't based on fact, but supposition (intent or lack of).
Contrast that with the Fekitoa ruling .....
Because you are arguing for no other reason than for the sake of arguing, the difference in hearings is not obvious to you, the Cane hearing was a defended hearing, whereas the Fekitoa hearing was a guilty plea, submissions in mitigation and the determining of sanction (if any) completly different types of hearings.
Foster did say that the ABs appreciated that Fekitoa got a fair hearing.
Read deeper, Laurie. Fekitoa did not admit guilt. He admitted to a yellow card offense, but denied a red card offense.
Yes, I'm arguing for the sake of it, but I will always argue my points fairly and honestly.
I have no reason to believe that you are not being honest and fair, but how about chucking in a bit of common sense and openmindedness as well?
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
I'm not. I'm giving my opinion that the panel is wrong, and I think it's wrong because their judgement isn't based on fact, but supposition (intent or lack of).
Contrast that with the Fekitoa ruling .....
Because you are arguing for no other reason than for the sake of arguing, the difference in hearings is not obvious to you, the Cane hearing was a defended hearing, whereas the Fekitoa hearing was a guilty plea, submissions in mitigation and the determining of sanction (if any) completly different types of hearings.
Foster did say that the ABs appreciated that Fekitoa got a fair hearing.
Read deeper, Laurie. Fekitoa did not admit guilt. He admitted to a yellow card offense, but denied a red card offense.
Yes, I'm arguing for the sake of it, but I will always argue my points fairly and honestly.
I have no reason to believe that you are not being honest and fair, but how about chucking in a bit of common sense and openmindedness as well?
ahem .... the same could be said of certain others defending Cane ...
Ok, so you accuse me of lacking common sense and of not being open minded. So, back it up, Laurie. Prove to me your assertions, or is it just ad hom?
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
960 posts - this thread is drawing to an end.
Is it worth continuing it or shall I lock it to preserve it?
Is it worth continuing it or shall I lock it to preserve it?
George Carlin- Admin
- Posts : 15729
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : KSA
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
George Carlin wrote:960 posts - this thread is drawing to an end.
Is it worth continuing it or shall I lock it to preserve it?
Send it to the Smithsonian.
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
I'm not. I'm giving my opinion that the panel is wrong, and I think it's wrong because their judgement isn't based on fact, but supposition (intent or lack of).
Contrast that with the Fekitoa ruling .....
Because you are arguing for no other reason than for the sake of arguing, the difference in hearings is not obvious to you, the Cane hearing was a defended hearing, whereas the Fekitoa hearing was a guilty plea, submissions in mitigation and the determining of sanction (if any) completly different types of hearings.
Foster did say that the ABs appreciated that Fekitoa got a fair hearing.
Read deeper, Laurie. Fekitoa did not admit guilt. He admitted to a yellow card offense, but denied a red card offense.
Yes, I'm arguing for the sake of it, but I will always argue my points fairly and honestly.
I have no reason to believe that you are not being honest and fair, but how about chucking in a bit of common sense and openmindedness as well?
ahem .... the same could be said of certain others defending Cane ...
Ok, so you accuse me of lacking common sense and of not being open minded. So, back it up, Laurie. Prove to me your assertions, or is it just ad hom?
Because you are arguing for the sake of arguing, it lacks common sense and this affects your ability to analyse with an open mind. Personally I didnt think that Sam Cane should of even been cited in the first place, and the fact that his case was dismissed indicates that possibly his citing was for no more reason to show and appease rabid Irish fans that justice was being seen to be done.
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Evidently, Rabid Irish fans weren't appeased. So the Panel were wrong even in their reasons for initially citing. Indeed, they were probably corrupt in bringing poor Sam before them on a trumped up charge just to placate a baying mob outside who were building the scaffold.
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
George Carlin wrote:960 posts - this thread is drawing to an end.
Is it worth continuing it or shall I lock it to preserve it?
Keep it going - they all deserve each other and it keeps them off the street
Barney McGrew did it- Posts : 1604
Join date : 2012-02-23
Location : Trumpton
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Barney McGrew did it wrote:George Carlin wrote:960 posts - this thread is drawing to an end.
Is it worth continuing it or shall I lock it to preserve it?
Keep it going - they all deserve each other and it keeps them off the street
Oh here we go. The Neighbourhood Bobby calls in for his ten cents worth of condescension. After him!
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
SecretFly wrote:Evidently, Rabid Irish fans weren't appeased. So the Panel were wrong even in their reasons for initially citing. Indeed, they were probably corrupt in bringing poor Sam before them on a trumped up charge just to placate a baying mob outside who were building the scaffold.
The scaffold could come in handy next week the convicts are in town.
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
The All Blacks were obviously smarting over their humiliation in Chicago, and wanted to inflict some of that onto their tormentors, so it was always going to be a very difficult game to officiate.
Surely the death threats to Wayne Barnes in 2007 wouldn't still worry officials, yet the officials and the Citing Commission seem to behave differently when New Zealand is involved compared to any other nation. For the Citing Commission to open a can of worms labelled 'intent' and so augmenting the World Rugby Laws to exonerate an All Black, they are obviously feeling a lot more heat than that generated by a few dissenting Irish voices.
Ireland fans and media would do well to take note of this. If there is some clandestine Big Brother who doesn't like the natural order of things being questioned, and may not want Ireland to improve their chances by having a home RWC, is it time to stop pointing out the glaring inconsistencies?
Surely the death threats to Wayne Barnes in 2007 wouldn't still worry officials, yet the officials and the Citing Commission seem to behave differently when New Zealand is involved compared to any other nation. For the Citing Commission to open a can of worms labelled 'intent' and so augmenting the World Rugby Laws to exonerate an All Black, they are obviously feeling a lot more heat than that generated by a few dissenting Irish voices.
Ireland fans and media would do well to take note of this. If there is some clandestine Big Brother who doesn't like the natural order of things being questioned, and may not want Ireland to improve their chances by having a home RWC, is it time to stop pointing out the glaring inconsistencies?
The Great Aukster- Posts : 5246
Join date : 2011-06-09
Rory_Gallagher- Posts : 11324
Join date : 2011-09-18
Age : 31
Location : Belfast
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:SecretFly wrote:Evidently, Rabid Irish fans weren't appeased. So the Panel were wrong even in their reasons for initially citing. Indeed, they were probably corrupt in bringing poor Sam before them on a trumped up charge just to placate a baying mob outside who were building the scaffold.
The scaffold could come in handy next week the convicts are in town.
Well at least old Cheika leaves evidence that can clearly convict him. Last time he was here he broke an €86,000 door at Lansdowne. So of course, he'll be arrested the minute he steps off the plane and the Aussie lads will have a new coach for the game itself. I hope the smoke coming from the pyre doesn't affect the enjoyment of the game for either side.
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
[quote="The Great Aukster"]The All Blacks were obviously smarting over their humiliation in Chicago, and wanted to inflict some of that onto their tormentors, so it was always going to be a very difficult game to officiate.
Surely the death threats to Wayne Barnes in 2007 wouldn't still worry officials, yet the officials and the Citing Commission seem to behave differently when New Zealand is involved compared to any other nation. For the Citing Commission to open a can of worms labelled 'intent' and so augmenting the World Rugby Laws to exonerate an All Black, they are obviously feeling a lot more heat than that generated by a few dissenting Irish voices.
Ireland fans and media would do well to take note of this. If there is some clandestine Big Brother who doesn't like the natural order of things being questioned, and may not want Ireland to improve their chances by having a home RWC, is it time to stop pointing out the glaring inconsistencies?[/quote]
So the following week they went out and shoved 70 points up Italy, whilst wearing poppies without gaining prior permission from the Irish.
Surely the death threats to Wayne Barnes in 2007 wouldn't still worry officials, yet the officials and the Citing Commission seem to behave differently when New Zealand is involved compared to any other nation. For the Citing Commission to open a can of worms labelled 'intent' and so augmenting the World Rugby Laws to exonerate an All Black, they are obviously feeling a lot more heat than that generated by a few dissenting Irish voices.
Ireland fans and media would do well to take note of this. If there is some clandestine Big Brother who doesn't like the natural order of things being questioned, and may not want Ireland to improve their chances by having a home RWC, is it time to stop pointing out the glaring inconsistencies?[/quote]
So the following week they went out and shoved 70 points up Italy, whilst wearing poppies without gaining prior permission from the Irish.
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
The Great Aukster wrote:
Ireland fans and media would do well to take note of this. If there is some clandestine Big Brother who doesn't like the natural order of things being questioned, and may not want Ireland to improve their chances by having a home RWC, is it time to stop pointing out the glaring inconsistencies?
....it's too late. They owe us one.... (a WC that is.) Sure didn't the nice female Kiwi commentator in Dublin even allude to it. 'Let us win and our name is on your bid'.
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.rapidsnowman wrote:I've long admired the Irish attitude – Brian O'Driscoll aside at times, of course – and their open admiration for the All Blacks.
Rugby Fan- Moderator
- Posts : 7573
Join date : 2012-09-14
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:[quote="The Great Aukster"]The All Blacks were obviously smarting over their humiliation in Chicago, and wanted to inflict some of that onto their tormentors, so it was always going to be a very difficult game to officiate.
Surely the death threats to Wayne Barnes in 2007 wouldn't still worry officials, yet the officials and the Citing Commission seem to behave differently when New Zealand is involved compared to any other nation. For the Citing Commission to open a can of worms labelled 'intent' and so augmenting the World Rugby Laws to exonerate an All Black, they are obviously feeling a lot more heat than that generated by a few dissenting Irish voices.
Ireland fans and media would do well to take note of this. If there is some clandestine Big Brother who doesn't like the natural order of things being questioned, and may not want Ireland to improve their chances by having a home RWC, is it time to stop pointing out the glaring inconsistencies?
So the following week they went out and shoved 70 points up Italy, whilst wearing poppies without gaining prior permission from the Irish.[/quote]
You are still hurting over the poppies article Laurie? In football Fifa are fining a number of teams for wearing poppies because they believe sport and politics shouldnt mix. The debate around the ABs and poppies was intended to ask similar questions.
Nothing to do with getting permission "from the Irish".
GunsGermsV2- Posts : 2550
Join date : 2016-11-15
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Probably because he threw himself on the ground to try to get some poor innocent ABs into trouble ...Rugby Fan wrote:One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.rapidsnowman wrote:I've long admired the Irish attitude – Brian O'Driscoll aside at times, of course – and their open admiration for the All Blacks.
Heaf- Posts : 6901
Join date : 2011-07-30
Location : Another planet
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
GunsGermsV2 wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:[quote="The Great Aukster"]The All Blacks were obviously smarting over their humiliation in Chicago, and wanted to inflict some of that onto their tormentors, so it was always going to be a very difficult game to officiate.
Surely the death threats to Wayne Barnes in 2007 wouldn't still worry officials, yet the officials and the Citing Commission seem to behave differently when New Zealand is involved compared to any other nation. For the Citing Commission to open a can of worms labelled 'intent' and so augmenting the World Rugby Laws to exonerate an All Black, they are obviously feeling a lot more heat than that generated by a few dissenting Irish voices.
Ireland fans and media would do well to take note of this. If there is some clandestine Big Brother who doesn't like the natural order of things being questioned, and may not want Ireland to improve their chances by having a home RWC, is it time to stop pointing out the glaring inconsistencies?
So the following week they went out and shoved 70 points up Italy, whilst wearing poppies without gaining prior permission from the Irish.
You are still hurting over the poppies article Laurie? In football Fifa are fining a number of teams for wearing poppies because they believe sport and politics shouldnt mix. The debate around the ABs and poppies was intended to ask similar questions.
Nothing to do with getting permission "from the Irish".[/quote]
Seriously were you thinking we should be fined?
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:aucklandlaurie wrote:Munchkin wrote:SecretFly wrote:Munchkin wrote:RugbyFan100 wrote:No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?
According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.
As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.
Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?
Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'
I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.
Just Googled it:
"....the same panel that banned Fekitoa ruled that Cane's actions had been "accidental" and that "he had not therefore committed an act of foul play".
So not an act of foul play because they judged it as accidental, otherwise it was an act of foul play.
Suppose it depends on whether you accept their findings, or not. Personally, I see it as an act of foul play, but that's just me
Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.
I'm not. I'm giving my opinion that the panel is wrong, and I think it's wrong because their judgement isn't based on fact, but supposition (intent or lack of).
Contrast that with the Fekitoa ruling .....
Because you are arguing for no other reason than for the sake of arguing, the difference in hearings is not obvious to you, the Cane hearing was a defended hearing, whereas the Fekitoa hearing was a guilty plea, submissions in mitigation and the determining of sanction (if any) completly different types of hearings.
Foster did say that the ABs appreciated that Fekitoa got a fair hearing.
Read deeper, Laurie. Fekitoa did not admit guilt. He admitted to a yellow card offense, but denied a red card offense.
Yes, I'm arguing for the sake of it, but I will always argue my points fairly and honestly.
I have no reason to believe that you are not being honest and fair, but how about chucking in a bit of common sense and openmindedness as well?
ahem .... the same could be said of certain others defending Cane ...
Ok, so you accuse me of lacking common sense and of not being open minded. So, back it up, Laurie. Prove to me your assertions, or is it just ad hom?
Because you are arguing for the sake of arguing, it lacks common sense and this affects your ability to analyse with an open mind. Personally I didnt think that Sam Cane should of even been cited in the first place, and the fact that his case was dismissed indicates that possibly his citing was for no more reason to show and appease rabid Irish fans that justice was being seen to be done.
If arguing for the sake of arguing in indicative of lacking common sense, then the vast majority of us on here are idiots, including you.
I enjoy debate. Doing things we enjoy has a purpose and is not indicative of lacking common sense, depending on what it is you do. On the other hand; if you don't enjoy debate, and persist in debating, you are truly a moron.
Arguing for the sake of arguing actually helps with forming a more objective analysis. That said; I do have a horse in this race, and do have a bias.
You might not believe Cane deserved to be penalised, but not everyone agrees with you, and not all of them are Irish. If you were open minded you could see both sides of the argument while holding to your own position.
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
George Carlin wrote:960 posts - this thread is drawing to an end.
Is it worth continuing it or shall I lock it to preserve it?
I think you should lock it now, George
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Last word to me. I'm right.....
.... okay lock it quick! Hurry!
.... okay lock it quick! Hurry!
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Steve Hansen was right to stick it back to Claire McNamara when she was badgering him to say that the All Blacks are a team of dirty players.
This whole week of bitterness has been driven by the Irish media and pulling a lot of Irish fans on board.
It is destructive for rugby, and does Ireland no favours either.
aucklandlaurie- Posts : 7561
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 67
Location : Auckland
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Steve Hansen was right to stick it back to Claire McNamara when she was badgering him to say that the All Blacks are a team of dirty players.
This whole week of bitterness has been driven by the Irish media and pulling a lot of Irish fans on board.
It is destructive for rugby, and does Ireland no favours either.
It's probably high time World Rugby only allowed authorised journalists to report on the game. Since the only ones who know what they're talking about are obviously from New Zealand this damage to rugby could have been nipped in the bud.
The Great Aukster- Posts : 5246
Join date : 2011-06-09
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Steve Hansen was right to stick it back to Claire McNamara when she was badgering him to say that the All Blacks are a team of dirty players.
This whole week of bitterness has been driven by the Irish media and pulling a lot of Irish fans on board.
It is destructive for rugby, and does Ireland no favours either.
Maybe some sheeple are led by the media, but I'm not sure you can blame the media on the disappointment that many supporters feel. Not all.
I honestly don't think it's bitterness. The ABs are held in high esteem here by many supporters, and this wont change because of what we see as a poor refereeing display. Great team and great supporters.
As for doing Ireland no favours? Meh, it will pass with the sands of time. Maybe not completely forgotten, but then we want a little spite for the next game
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Steve Hansen was right to stick it back to Claire McNamara when she was badgering him to say that the All Blacks are a team of dirty players.
This whole week of bitterness has been driven by the Irish media and pulling a lot of Irish fans on board.
It is destructive for rugby, and does Ireland no favours either.
Oh come on Laurie. Steve Hansen seems to have only one emotion in interview - a sighing air of apathy; a dry, dead look of not-wanting-to-be there.
If he doesn't like answering questions (light or heavy) then maybe he should have passed on the biggest Media rugby job on the planet. He took on the ABs. He knows they are the marketing kings. He knows it is partially his role to keep that brand running - and yet he glowers, and sighs, and shrugs those big overcoated, disinterested shoulders of his through just about every interview he gives. His attitude is always; "Go on then - ask your small time questions but I'm a busy man, I run the ABs".
Maybe it's getting to the point where people might get the idea that maybe it's just him - maybe he has issues with just about everyone. Maybe he needs to lighten up. It ain't all that bad - he's just off an 18 game winning cycle. Lighten up, Steve. Smile a little. Enjoy the weather up there. There are many coaches who'd like to be on top of that kinda side. Interviewing him must be like trying to get words out of Frankenstein's monster.
Now look at another Kiwi talking to the same interviewer (light and heavy). See how Joe Schmidt operates. Study him in all those interviews. I'm tiring of Mr Grump Hansen's act of strolling around the globe like a Godfather goodfella. Christ, even renowned grump, Graham Henry, was at least funny and always had a devilish sparkle in his eyes.
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
I think it's ok to be a good guy and a cry baby at the same timeRugby Fan wrote:One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.rapidsnowman wrote:I've long admired the Irish attitude – Brian O'Driscoll aside at times, of course – and their open admiration for the All Blacks.
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Come on ebop - time to show your good guy side?ebop wrote:I think it's ok to be a good guy and a cry baby at the same timeRugby Fan wrote:One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.rapidsnowman wrote:I've long admired the Irish attitude – Brian O'Driscoll aside at times, of course – and their open admiration for the All Blacks.
The Great Aukster- Posts : 5246
Join date : 2011-06-09
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Eh? I think he's a good guyThe Great Aukster wrote:Come on ebop - time to show your good guy side?ebop wrote:I think it's ok to be a good guy and a cry baby at the same timeRugby Fan wrote:One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.rapidsnowman wrote:I've long admired the Irish attitude – Brian O'Driscoll aside at times, of course – and their open admiration for the All Blacks.
Guest- Guest
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Anyone want the last word?
George Carlin- Admin
- Posts : 15729
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : KSA
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Close her down, George.
New Zealand and Ireland are now officially at war. Our armies will take over from here
Oh and let Munch have the last word.
New Zealand and Ireland are now officially at war. Our armies will take over from here
Oh and let Munch have the last word.
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November
Munchkin wrote:Me!
SecretFly- Posts : 31800
Join date : 2011-12-12
George Carlin- Admin
- Posts : 15729
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : KSA
Page 20 of 20 • 1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20
Similar topics
» Ireland V New Zealand rematch next November (or possibly in the US according to Siné)
» England vs New Zealand 8th November
» Scotland V New Zealand - November 15th
» Scotland vs New Zealand 18th November
» Ireland v Australia, 26 November
» England vs New Zealand 8th November
» Scotland V New Zealand - November 15th
» Scotland vs New Zealand 18th November
» Ireland v Australia, 26 November
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union :: International
Page 20 of 20
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|