Wallabies v British & Irish Lions: 3rd Test - pre match discussion and Poll

First topic message reminder :

Third test winners and score prediction?

20:00 AEST, 11:00 BST
Saturday, 6th July, 2013
ANZ Stadium, Sydney

Referee: Romain Poite

The weather is expected to be clear and sunny with temperatures ranging from 5-16° C at Homebush Bay.

So it will all come down to the final match with the series level at 1-a-piece.
Both sides are battered and bruised, many top players are missing... there's even a touch of controversy.
The final team announcements will be made later in the week... probably around Thursday morning AEST.

Pretty small foothills in my mind.
Lions still seem to be stuck in the valley basecamp.  but it can all change in the blink of an eye I know.

Frankly both teams last week were stuck in the swamplands and bogged down in the Marshlands of Mediocrity and Nerves, LB.

If either team wants to peak, they're going to have to find solid ground.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Got to do more than try and bash down the door. Guile and Flair is how to unpick the Ozzies. Just look at France's demolition of them in the Autumn.

Any specifics of players with such guile and flair? If you put a player like Hogg in at fullback where does that leave Halfpenny? If you put in Twelveleaves or Tleaves do you take out BOD as well to include Tuilagi and is that cancelling out guile and flair for what you had in the first place?

Gatland could put in Tipuric for example but who partners him in the backrow?

I just don't see a shift from Gatlandball to running rugby, nor think that would be in the Lions' interests. I do think there can be subtle changes to the squad and tactics but guile and flair for me sum up hardly any of the squad possibilities for me. There aren't enough of those types of players to play that way. Honing what they've done - using the rolling maul more for a start which has been effective when used and inexplicably underutilised - and cutting down errors seems a much more manageable task for me.

It would help a lot if we had a 9 who could get soem quick ball to Sexton. I thought Youngs might be that man but sadly both Youngs and Philips have played quite badly.

It would also help to not have instructions to unleash the bomb and mix it up a little. Quick ball, agreed, does make those options easier to take.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Got to do more than try and bash down the door. Guile and Flair is how to unpick the Ozzies. Just look at France's demolition of them in the Autumn.

Any specifics of players with such guile and flair? If you put a player like Hogg in at fullback where does that leave Halfpenny? If you put in Twelveleaves or Tleaves do you take out BOD as well to include Tuilagi and is that cancelling out guile and flair for what you had in the first place?

Gatland could put in Tipuric for example but who partners him in the backrow?

I just don't see a shift from Gatlandball to running rugby, nor think that would be in the Lions' interests. I do think there can be subtle changes to the squad and tactics but guile and flair for me sum up hardly any of the squad possibilities for me. There aren't enough of those types of players to play that way. Honing what they've done - using the rolling maul more for a start which has been effective when used and inexplicably underutilised - and cutting down errors seems a much more manageable task for me.

Since you called me out :

My team
1. Corbs/Grant
2. Hibbard
3. Cole
4. Gray
5. Evans
6. SOB
7. Tipuric
8. Faleteu

9. Youngs
10. Sexton
11. North
12. JD2
13. Tuilagi
14. Zebo
15. Halfpenny (C)

16. Youngs
17. Vunipola
18. Jones
19. AWJ
20. Heaslip
21. Phillips
22. BOD
23. Hogg

So, we have a tight 5 that can scrummage and put Australia under pressure, a set of loose forwards who can carry, turnover and tackle, and we have Gray and Evans at lock who have a huge workrate.

A backline who's primary job is to move the ball around and a bench with some physical and abrasive forwards and Hogg and BOD to come on and exploit some gaps.

Phillips as an impact Scrumhalf to bring his physical game if required.

My main advice would be to run everything that isn't inside our own 22.

My advice would be to call it more aggressively than always taking penalty shots for 3 points when Halfpenny is in range. Show belief and grim intent by going for attacking lineouts close to Aussie tryline.
This Lions tour is creating a kicking hero but the points aren't nearly aggressive enough in intent to force authority onto the game. Risk it.

I like your team there Radge, notably in the backrow. I can see where you're getting at but running everything outside the 22 is not necessarily guile and flair. It could be frenetic and risky. Sexton can control a game with the boot and there's no harm in playing the territory game and pinning Australia down in their own half. A better question to ask is why do you want to run everything? Is it to keep possession and keep Australia defending or is it to make inroads into Australia and get them moving back? Because you can do that with the boot as well.

If you pick a squad like that, choosing the best options on attack seems to be why you're going for that team. When the situation arises, like with turnover ball, you want Tipuric linking up with the back three and skipping out the midfield. With front foot ball you can sum up where a cross field chip to North is the better tactic or moving it through the hands because you have numbers.

Throwing the ball around is all well and good but it can be just as predictable as what we saw last week as well.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I like your team there Radge, notably in the backrow. I can see where you're getting at but running everything outside the 22 is not necessarily guile and flair. It could be frenetic and risky. Sexton can control a game with the boot and there's no harm in playing the territory game and pinning Australia down in their own half. A better question to ask is why do you want to run everything? Is it to keep possession and keep Australia defending or is it to make inroads into Australia and get them moving back? Because you can do that with the boot as well.

If you pick a squad like that, choosing the best options on attack seems to be why you're going for that team. When the situation arises, like with turnover ball, you want Tipuric linking up with the back three and skipping out the midfield. With front foot ball you can sum up where a cross field chip to North is the better tactic or moving it through the hands because you have numbers.

Throwing the ball around is all well and good but it can be just as predictable as what we saw last week as well.

Well I didn't want to suggest play like Munster and squeeze the life out of them. Although I don't think we have a good enough tactical kicker at 10 to even try.

You want ROG to be called up for the final test?  

SecretFly wrote:My advice would be to call it more aggressively than always taking penalty shots for 3 points when Halfpenny is in range.  Show belief and grim intent by going for attacking lineouts close to Aussie tryline.
This Lions tour is creating a kicking hero but the points aren't nearly aggressive enough in intent to force authority onto the game.  Risk it.

Spot on. Go out and win the match. So far the Lions have played as if they are holding out for the match to finish. They need to go out and finish the match themselves. They are well capable of doing it.

I think Wales series of losses to Australia has had too much of an effect on Gatland's ambition.

They are just saying on Foxsports that the decision on Horwill will be handed down tomorrow morning now. 11pm here. So after 2 and a half hours of shenanigans it has reached a stalemate? but surely the writing is on the wall and Gatland and the IRB will get their way.

ROG would answer the call too. And that'd be some story!

Two old Irish farts win the Lions series!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or

Two f**kin' Paddy asswholes run into each other as Folau chases in for a winning touch down!!!!!!!!!!!!

Either way, it's a classic.

Yeah, call ROG up.

Bit disruptive in terms of preparation. Sounds a bit of a sham to me and the timing seems suspect. The IRB stepped in to extend Thomson's ban. I don't have a problem with the ban extension just on how it occurred. Horwill gets a hearing and doesn't receive a ban. IRB step in and say they want the decision looked at again. If the IRB know so rucking much about right or wrong, why do we bother with hearings? Why don't we seek out the all and mighty knowing IRB every time? Strange that these IRB appeals don't happen in the 6N or the RC.

Always leave with a WUM.  

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/horwill-to-learn-his-fate-on-tuesday-20130701-2p81q.html

 I take it you don't want a 2nd opinion on that post Kia

Linebreaker wrote:They are just saying on Foxsports that the decision on Horwill will be handed down tomorrow morning now. 11pm here. So after 2 and a half hours of shenanigans it has reached a stalemate? but surely the writing is on the wall and Gatland and the IRB will get their way.

I hope they just let him get on with his series and if they feel a need to, say the judgement to competely dismiss the seriousness of a the head contact was a wrong judgement.  In short, criticise the commissioner not penalise the player.

If he gets a ban it will be a disaster for the the tour that is at least competitive and dramatically knife-edge exciting up to this point

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Bit disruptive in terms of preparation. Sounds a bit of a sham to me and the timing seems suspect. The IRB stepped in to extend Thomson's ban. I don't have a problem with the ban extension just on how it occurred. Horwill gets a hearing and doesn't receive a ban. IRB step in and say they want the decision looked at again. If the IRB know so rucking much about right or wrong, why do we bother with hearings? Why don't we seek out the all and mighty knowing IRB every time? Strange that these IRB appeals don't happen in the 6N or the RC.

Always leave with a WUM.  

kia, I think the IRB have opened a can of worms with this one, in a potentially very serious error of judgement. If Horwill ends up with a ban, POC's let-off for some tasty leg-/foot-work on Dave Kearney will be called into question (prob best not to bring that particular incident back up for discussion)

So because we want the series to stay competitive, we don't ban a player for stamping on a head but instead have a go at the commisioner for not banning the player?

This place gets better and better.

ASBO to me it undermines the judicial hearing process. In the court system we have the right to appeal. But that is the victim or the person found guilty. Not the court itself!!

When the IRB choose to step in at random times and appeal decisions, you can't help but feel it's not out of a moral sense of injustice but, rather, out of specific interests. And therein lies the problem because maybe it was driven by the former but can be interpreted as the latter.

Simple solution. Have an independent inquiry and remove yourself from the decision process. At least have the wit to make an appeal on behalf of the people who brought the issue to matter.

Jelly the commissioner is not at issue here. The IRB deeming this matter deserves their input is what's being discussed.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
kia, I think the IRB have opened a can of worms with this one, in a potentially very serious error of judgement.  If Horwill ends up with a ban, POC's let-off for some tasty leg-/foot-work on Dave Kearney will be called into question (prob best not to bring that particular incident back up for discussion)

The POC incident occured in a Rabo match rather than an international match though. Has the IRB ever intervened in the citing process of a club match? Would that not be Celtic Rugby Ltd or the ERCs jurisdiction?

Think you're right there GG. I just don't think the IRB should ever so openly step in and question a decision. I'd hate to see us going down the road of the ref blowing his whistle and an old IRB fart being wheeled onto the field and giving a nod or shake of the head before play can resume.

jelly wrote:So because we want the series to stay competitive, we don't ban a player for stamping on a head but instead have a go at the commisioner for not banning the player?

This place gets better and better.

Absolutely correct.... I said what I said, I mean it and there you go...an opinion. It's like double jeopardy? You know, the legal principle? Not so outlandish a concept.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Think you're right there GG. I just don't think the IRB should ever so openly step in and question a decision. I'd hate to see us going down the road of the ref blowing his whistle and an old IRB fart being wheeled onto the field and giving a nod or shake of the head before play can resume.

It is not unprecedented though. Adam Thompson, after IRB intervention also had a ban increased from 1 week to 2 in a recent match v Scotland. It was also for stamping on a players head.

GunsGerms wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Think you're right there GG. I just don't think the IRB should ever so openly step in and question a decision. I'd hate to see us going down the road of the ref blowing his whistle and an old IRB fart being wheeled onto the field and giving a nod or shake of the head before play can resume.

It is not unprecedented though. Adam Thompson, after IRB intervention also had a ban increased from 1 week to 2 in a recent match v Scotland. It was also for stamping on a players head.

Not really the same, asking for a review of the length of the ban vs. a review of the whole decision (i.e. in effect instructing the new citing officer to change it)?

But that is an extension. Here is whether a ban should be or not. In my mind that's even worse, even if it's only a one match suspension.

I don't have a problem with the commissioner saying Thomson's incident deserved a two week ban. I don't have a problem with a decision calling Horwill's incident a one week ban for a reckless boot. My issue is with the IRB using their discretion to feel it necessary to step in and take issue with the decision of a citing commissioner where there have been other times where dubious sanctions have been given (not giving enough, not giving any sanction and giving too much) and the IRB hasn't seen the need to step in or create a sense of uniformity to decisions. I'm sure we've been left baffled at some decisions over the years like BOD in 2005, Spitgate, Stampgate, Gougegate, Cheatgate etc where the IRB have been silent.

If you get involved, you have to get involved all the time. Otherwise people question your motives when you only get involved on very isolated occasions.

Today is a write-off in terms of work.  

SecretFly wrote:

jelly wrote:So because we want the series to stay competitive, we don't ban a player for stamping on a head but instead have a go at the commisioner for not banning the player?

This place gets better and better.

Absolutely correct.... I said what I said, I mean it and there you go...an opinion.  It's like double jeopardy?  You know, the legal principle?  Not so outlandish a concept.

I though double jeapardy was where you couldn't get convicted of the same crime twice, not where you couldn't be tried for the same crime having previously been cleared?

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinion. My commment was more that the desire to see Horwill allowed to play seem to be driven by a desire to keep the series competitive rather than any wish for justice to prevail, regardless of what that justice is.

Whether Horwill plays or not is irrelevant to me. Ban him well into the RC. Also fine by me.  

But make sure that ban comes from the citing commissioner. Not an IRB add-on after the decision has been made because certain parties appear to want the series to be less competitive. That's a big difference as to what you're saying jelly.

Double Jeopardy:

"A procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction."

It handles both premises of guilt and innocence not having to be proved twice.

Anyway... I'm not arguing for him to be allowed get on with it to keep the series competitive (afterall, the Lions have lost O'Connell and Warburton in as many weeks - so the Lions could already claim they've lost more influencial players)

.............but you have no idea (or probably have a very good idea!) where this will go in the media if he is banned having been already acquitted.

It will spoil the idea that the series is dependent on yet another rugby game at the weekend and will become one of spite and blame and counter-claims in the media.  It will become a nasty media event when we should be concentrating on a game at the weekend

The IRB give recommendations for how long bans are for. So if they feel these are not applied with the spirit they were intended it makes sense for the IRB to step in.

That's not what is happening here (unless they issue something akin to tip tackles saying any contact with the head with a boot should be carded and banned).

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Think you're right there GG. I just don't think the IRB should ever so openly step in and question a decision. I'd hate to see us going down the road of the ref blowing his whistle and an old IRB fart being wheeled onto the field and giving a nod or shake of the head before play can resume.

It is not unprecedented though. Adam Thompson, after IRB intervention also had a ban increased from 1 week to 2 in a recent match v Scotland. It was also for stamping on a players head.

Not really the same, asking for a review of the length of the ban vs. a review of the whole decision (i.e. in effect instructing the new citing officer to change it)?

Theres no difference. Who is instructing the new citing officer to change it? How have you come to that conclusion? I dont think the ruling will be changed at all to be honest. I think this is just something the IRB feel needs to be re-examined to be certain the right decision was made.

Also Ive noticed a few papers mentioning that "Gatland may have asked the IRB to review the decision". Can anyone tell definitively whether or not Gatland did contact the IRB? If not Im not sure why this is being reported.

Having looked at the video again it looks more suspicious that I originally thought because there seemed no logical reason to thrust his leg backwards. However, there is no evidence it was intentional so cant see how he will be banned. If you want a conspiracy theory I'd imagine this is an attempt by the IRB to ensure a clean series. It has worked.

SecretFly wrote:Double Jeopardy:

"A procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction."

It handles both premises of guilt and innocence not having to be proved twice.

Anyway... I'm not arguing for him to be allowed get on with it to keep the series competitive (afterall, the Lions have lost O'Connell and Warburton in as many weeks - so the Lions could already claim they've lost more influencial players)

.............but you have no idea (or probably have a very good idea!) where this will go in the media if he is banned having been already acquitted.

It will spoil the idea that the series is dependent on yet another rugby game at the weekend and will become one of spite and blame and counter-claims in the media.  It will become a nasty media event when we should be concentrating on a game at the weekend

Can it only happen if new evidence is found? Or is that in the UK? Do we have double jeopardy here? On DVD? That was naff film

The Lions people said they made no representations to the IRB. None. So either they're confident they're telling the truth or they're confident they've got rid of any whistleblowers who might in the future tell a different story  

I can't predict the score and it is almost impossible to predict team selection on this tour. I predicted correctly when I saw the team for the second test, a weak scrum and picking Youngs at scrum half, I also thought it crazy not picking your top try scorer. I would like Gray or Evans starting or on the bench, Hibbard at hooker and an all Welsh back row. Corbs must play if fit. BOD has put everything into it but he has not made a single break which is not good enough for an outside centre.

I hope Gatland picks the team and ignores Rowntree's selections, I don't want Croft near the team, Lydiate and Warburton (Tipuric to replace) were very good last week and would have been better with Faletau.

I hope Manu or Roberts will be fit to play and on the bench.

I feel the Lions can win the game with good team selection and not constantly kicking the ball away and badly.

GunsGerms wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Think you're right there GG. I just don't think the IRB should ever so openly step in and question a decision. I'd hate to see us going down the road of the ref blowing his whistle and an old IRB fart being wheeled onto the field and giving a nod or shake of the head before play can resume.

It is not unprecedented though. Adam Thompson, after IRB intervention also had a ban increased from 1 week to 2 in a recent match v Scotland. It was also for stamping on a players head.

Not really the same, asking for a review of the length of the ban vs. a review of the whole decision (i.e. in effect instructing the new citing officer to change it)?

Theres no difference. Who is instructing the new citing officer to change it? How have you come to that conclusion? I dont think the ruling will be changed at all to be honest. I think this is just something the IRB feel needs to be re-examined to be certain the right decision was made.

Also Ive noticed a few papers mentioning that "Gatland may have asked the IRB to review the decision". Can anyone tell definitively whether or not Gatland did contact the IRB? If not Im not sure why this is being reported.

Having looked at the video again it looks more suspicious that I originally thought because there seemed no logical reason to thrust his leg backwards. However, there is no evidence it was intentional so cant see how he will be banned. I'd imagine this is an attempt by the IRB to ensure a clean series. It has worked.

On what grounds, Guns? Do they feel that the first decision was taken without full information? Do they feel that the citing officer was impartial? That they won't say is odd in the extreme. The logical conclusion is therefore that they don't feel that the right decision was reached and want it reversed surely?

glamorganalun wrote:I can't predict the score and it is almost impossible to predict team selection on this tour. I predicted correctly when I saw the team for the second test, a weak scrum and picking Youngs at scrum half, I also thought it crazy not picking your top try scorer. I would like Gray or Evans starting or on the bench, Hibbard at hooker and an all Welsh back row. Corbs must play if fit. BOD has put everything into it but he has not made a single break which is not good enough for an outside centre.

I hope Gatland picks the team and ignores Rowntree's selections, I don't want Croft near the team, Lydiate and Warburton (Tipuric to replace) were very good last week and would have been better with Faletau.

I hope Manu or Roberts will be fit to play and on the bench.

I feel the Lions can win the game with good team selection and not constantly kicking the ball away and badly.

Fairly one eyed posting. You criticise BOD but if Davies had not missed his tackle on AAC the Lions may have a series win now. Drico has hardly missed a tackle and none of the centres have made many breaks because the Lions tactics are to play crash ball after crash ball.

Picking Youngs was the right call because philips deserved to be dropped.

Tipuric probably deserves his chance now but Faletau and Lydiate have been hit and miss so not sure how you can be so convinced that they should be part of "an all Welsh backrow".

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
On what grounds, Guns?  Do they feel that the first decision was taken without full information?  Do they feel that the citing officer was impartial?  That they won't say is odd in the extreme.  The logical conclusion is therefore that they don't feel that the right decision was reached and want it reversed surely?

Thats the point Im making we dont know what the grounds are so we will have to wait until tomorrow to see. Its not a logical conclusion its just speculation. I hope Horwill is not banned as the Aussies will use at as an excuse if we win and we should be well able to beat them anyway with him playing.

GunsGerms wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
On what grounds, Guns?  Do they feel that the first decision was taken without full information?  Do they feel that the citing officer was impartial?  That they won't say is odd in the extreme.  The logical conclusion is therefore that they don't feel that the right decision was reached and want it reversed surely?

Thats the point Im making we dont know what the grounds are so we will have to wait until tomorrow to see. Its not a logical conclusion its just speculation. I hope Horwill is not banned as the Aussies will use at as an excuse if we win and we should be well able to beat them anyway with him playing.

Fair e-muf-f, Guns, let's wait until tomorrow - but I honestly believe it is far more than plain speculation

You're dealing with a lawyer's mind here GG. Our other Scottish friend GC seems suspiciously close to QC. Be afraid!

The speculation arises because the IRB have directly involved themselves. We can speculate on the reasons for their intervention but therein lies the harm. They lose any sense of impartiality precisely because they have been seen to intervene. Appeals should be made to them but not by them.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You're dealing with a lawyer's mind here GG. Our other Scottish friend GC seems suspiciously close to QC. Be afraid!

Suspiciously close to who?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
The speculation arises because the IRB have directly involved themselves. We can speculate on the reasons for their intervention but therein lies the harm. They lose any sense of impartiality precisely because they have been seen to intervene. Appeals should be made to them but not by them.

If for example the IRB had intervened and reinvestigated the Umaga/Mealamu/Drico incident in '05 they would have avoided years of contraversy and criticism.

The IRB is an International board so I cant see how it is a case of being impartial but rather cleaning up the game. Are you saying the IRB are impartial as they have a HQ in Dublin and have B&I people on the board?

Im not sure for example this is as bad as when in In November 2009, Paddy O'Brien publicly apologized to New Zealand with regards to the refereeing performance of Stuart Dickinson during an international match against Italy.

And we were forced to publically apologise for turning up and wasting precious All Black time last time we toured there! Nobody is bringing that up!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Whether Horwill plays or not is irrelevant to me. Ban him well into the RC. Also fine by me.  

But make sure that ban comes from the citing commissioner. Not an IRB add-on after the decision has been made because certain parties appear to want the series to be less competitive. That's a big difference as to what you're saying jelly.

What on earth am I saying then? All I've said is that I don't think the decision should be made based on whether it makes the series competitive or not, but on the merits of the case.

A QC lawyer.

Concerning 2005, my point exactly. Why did they not intervene then but feel the need to now? It's all about precedent. Once you decide to step in, people will call you out on it with future cases and will inevitably look back at past cases which did not warrant the IRB step in.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories or who has real control of the IRB. All I'm saying is that they open themselves up to that suspicion if they do actively intervene. Let us await what is said tomorrow but to me this is similar to the Scottish RFU saying they will make an announcement on a future coach and opening up a speculative can of worms as to who that might be before they were able to make that announcement. Why do the IRB need to step in this time and not on other cases which have attracted criticism like the BOD example in 2005? If you don't want people to speculate on your motives, don't put yourself in a position that they can.

In which case jelly your point is fine and I retract my statement.

I missed that one Fly. Could you be so kind as to remind me?

Just to repeat.  The Lions now could justifiably already claim the competitiveness has gone out of the series as they've had two of their influencial forwards dumped and Horwill (up till time of posting) is still in his side - Mr Australian Influencial, as it were.

So I wouldn't be accusing anyone from either side of trying to make the last game less competitive.  It's a straight "did he deserve punishment?" "was commissioner's initial judgement problematic?", "should he now be banned after having been acquitted?".

The letter of the law will say that if he's found guilty by the new judgement then he should be banned.  
Reason will say that judgement is going to be a festering sore for years to come if he was first acquitted, then banned and then Australia lose the final test.

Take your pick, Ladies and Gentlemen

Just being' mischievous, kia. Just being mischievous

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:A QC lawyer.

Ok, sorry we dont use that term in our legal system so unfamiliar with it.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Concerning 2005, my point exactly. Why did they not intervene then but feel the need to now? It's all about precedent.

Sometimes its about learning from your mistakes. Equally the Thompson case could be seen to have set a new precedent.

Both involved a stamp to the head. Could this be the key to the review?

Good man Fly. Though I did see a good reason for that apology.  

Perhaps GG but seems a strange precedent to limit yourself to appealing only on stamping cases.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:...Why do the IRB need to step in this time and not on other cases which have attracted criticism like the BOD example in 2005?

The IRB only recently introduced the necessary change to allow them to step in. The fact they made this change means they saw a need for this additional power. It's fair to assume they must have seen previous cases where they would like to have had a second bite.

Where were you three hours ago Rugby Fan?!

Thanks for that info. I'm off to find a rock to crawl under. 

Tough on players.  Yeah, I know, I know... if they do wrong, who should be sympathetic?

But just the idea now that if you're cited and you're judged to be innocent, that's not the end of it as you then wait and hope you don't hear an IRB appeal being published the following week.

There is a potential for all citing judgements to be a tad politically orientated.  That's 'potential' folks, I'm not suggesting they are in practice.  

But even more so, there is a real potential for IRB judgements or appeals to be political.  They have time to listen to the media feedback from the initial citing and take their decisions based on what they might feel a majority are clamouring for.  The potential is there for lynching justice and being seen to come to the popular judgement.

Just pointing that out in the context of this debate.

The Canadian judge heard 2 hours of the appeal today, but won't deliver his verdict until Tuesday morning Aussie time. I am really not sure which way it will go.