Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Page 20 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20

Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by George Carlin on Mon 14 Nov 2016, 7:15 am

First topic message reminder :

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Irelan10       Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 All_bl10
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 
Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Guinne10
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
Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Speigh10
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
George Carlin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 14720
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : United Arab Emirates

Back to top Go down


Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:02 pm

What was marty right about three pages ago? That the findings of the commission are wrong?

SecretFly

Posts : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:04 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:12 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


Please dont now go on to arguing that the panel is wrong.

aucklandlaurie

Posts : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:15 pm

The Panel IS.................. drumroll .....don't be impatient..........................it's......................

WRONG!!! Bubbly Bubbly Yahoo

SecretFly

Posts : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:16 pm

Okay...let's get wikileaks info up on this here panel as a starter.

SecretFly

Posts : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:17 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


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


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:23 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


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 : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:27 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


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


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:34 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


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 : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:37 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


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


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by George Carlin on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:43 pm

960 posts - this thread is drawing to an end.

Is it worth continuing it or shall I lock it to preserve it?

George Carlin
George Carlin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 14720
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : United Arab Emirates

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:48 pm

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 : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:48 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


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 : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:52 pm

Evidently, Rabid Irish fans weren't appeased. So the Panel were wrong even in their reasons for initially citing. Whistle 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 : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Barney McGrew did it on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:52 pm

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
Barney McGrew did it

Posts : 1530
Join date : 2012-02-23
Location : Trumpton

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:55 pm

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! Run

SecretFly

Posts : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:57 pm

SecretFly wrote:Evidently, Rabid Irish fans weren't appeased.  So the Panel were wrong even in their reasons for initially citing. Whistle   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 : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by The Great Aukster on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:59 pm

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?

The Great Aukster

Posts : 5131
Join date : 2011-06-09

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Rory_Gallagher on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:00 pm

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 1347041234

Rory_Gallagher

Posts : 11324
Join date : 2011-09-18
Age : 27
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:01 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Evidently, Rabid Irish fans weren't appeased.  So the Panel were wrong even in their reasons for initially citing. Whistle   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 : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:05 pm

[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.

aucklandlaurie

Posts : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:06 pm

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.) Wink 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 : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Rugby Fan on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:12 pm

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.

picard
One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.

Rugby Fan

Posts : 5898
Join date : 2012-09-14

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by GunsGermsV2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:15 pm

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

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Heaf on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:19 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
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.

picard
One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.
Probably because he threw himself on the ground to try to get some poor innocent ABs into trouble ...

Heaf

Posts : 3346
Join date : 2011-07-30

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:25 pm

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 : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:35 pm

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 Wink  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  Smile


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


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:47 pm

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 angel

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 5:59 pm

Last word to me. I'm right.....

.... okay lock it quick! Hurry!

SecretFly

Posts : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by aucklandlaurie on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:06 pm


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 : 7525
Join date : 2011-06-27
Age : 63
Location : Auckland

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by The Great Aukster on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:20 pm

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 : 5131
Join date : 2011-06-09

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:23 pm

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 Very Happy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:27 pm

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 : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by ebop on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:34 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
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.

picard
One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.
I think it's ok to be a good guy and a cry baby at the same time
ebop
ebop

Posts : 5030
Join date : 2011-10-25

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by The Great Aukster on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:39 pm

ebop wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
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.

picard
One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.
I think it's ok to be a good guy and a cry baby at the same time
Come on ebop - time to show your good guy side?

The Great Aukster

Posts : 5131
Join date : 2011-06-09

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by ebop on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:42 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
ebop wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
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.

picard
One of life's modern mysteries is how some NZers have managed to convince themselves that BOD is a bad guy.
I think it's ok to be a good guy and a cry baby at the same time
Come on ebop - time to show your good guy side?
Eh? I think he's a good guy
ebop
ebop

Posts : 5030
Join date : 2011-10-25

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by George Carlin on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:55 pm

Anyone want the last word? Wink
George Carlin
George Carlin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 14720
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : United Arab Emirates

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 6:59 pm

Me! Yahoo

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 7:01 pm

I'm Sparticus.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 19135
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 7:02 pm

This is mine! mad

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 7:03 pm

Close her down, George.

New Zealand and Ireland are now officially at war. Our armies will take over from here OK

Oh and let Munch have the last word.

SecretFly

Posts : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 7:03 pm

Munchkin wrote:Me! Yahoo

SecretFly

Posts : 31124
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 7:04 pm

Thank you Very Happy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by George Carlin on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 7:05 pm

George Carlin
George Carlin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 14720
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : United Arab Emirates

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 20 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 20 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum