[2016 Rugby Championship] New Zealand v Australia (27/08/2016)

[smartcooky]

There are a couple of aspects ti this Franks alleged eye-contact incident.

Firstly, we are not talking about something here that the officials have missed. Poite had a clear view, looked directly at what Franks did, and didn't penalise him. The Citing Commissioner has also seen the footage, and decided that there was no reason to cite. In fact, he didn't even give Franks the lower sanction of a Citing Commissioner's Warning (a post match yellow card) which means he didn't even think the infringement (if there even was an infringement) met the standard for a yellow card, let alone the red one required for a citing.

Secondly, its all very well for us to bring up other instances where players were cited and start bleating about inconsistency, but the fact is that (as Shag points out) we haven't seen all of the angles. In a major test match like this, there are over a dozen cameras on the ground, and all 80 minutes of footage from every camera gets recorded. The Citing Commissioner has unfettered access to the footage from ALL of these cameras. Its very likely that on another camera angle, that we haven't seen, there is clear evidence that there was no contact with the eyes and no eye-gouge and he will have made his decision based on that footage. We can speculate all we like about the Franks incident, but we cannot come to any correct conclusions because we haven't seen all of the evidence.

That said, when I look at the one angle we do have, I cannot escape the feeling that it looks like an eye-gouge. However, I accept that someone more experienced than me, who has seen all of the angles, has not cited him, so maybe it looked a lot worse than it actually was.

- - - Updated - - -

The central point was and remains that Hansen walked into a gig where Henry had built a brilliant machine and all he did was keep it running.

Utter rubbish...just complete BS...he did no such thing!! You have no idea what you are talking about!

Hansen was appointed as Graham Henry's assistant coach at the same time that Henry himself was appointed (2004) and was his assistant until 2011 when Henry retired. BOTH were instrumental in the rebuild after the 2007 disaster, and it was one of Graham Henry's key conditions when he asked to be reappointed in 2008, that Hansen also be reappointed to his team.

But you go ahead and spout your rubbish. Never let the truth get it the way of bullshit!

 

[Gavin]

Apparently new footage has emerged of the Frank's moment.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/al...of-eye-gouge-but-this-video-doesn-t-look-good

If that does not show contact with the eyes of another player then there is something fishy going on down south.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

There are a couple of aspects ti this Franks alleged eye-contact incident.

Firstly, we are not talking about something here that the officials have missed. Poite had a clear view, looked directly at what Franks did, and didn't penalise him. The Citing Commissioner has also seen the footage, and decided that there was no reason to cite. In fact, he didn't even give Franks the lower sanction of a Citing Commissioner's Warning (a post match yellow card) which means he didn't even think the infringement (if there even was an infringement) met the standard for a yellow card, let alone the red one required for a citing.

Secondly, its all very well for us to bring up other instances where players were cited and start bleating about inconsistency, but the fact is that (as Shag points out) we haven't seen all of the angles. In a major test match like this, there are over a dozen cameras on the ground, and all 80 minutes of footage from every camera gets recorded. The Citing Commissioner has unfettered access to the footage from ALL of these cameras. Its very likely that on another camera angle, that we haven't seen, there is clear evidence that there was no contact with the eyes and no eye-gouge and he will have made his decision based on that footage. We can speculate all we like about the Franks incident, but we cannot come to any correct conclusions because we haven't seen all of the evidence.

That said, when I look at the one angle we do have, I cannot escape the feeling that it looks like an eye-gouge. However, I accept that someone more experienced than me, who has seen all of the angles, has not cited him, so maybe it looked a lot worse than it actually was.

- - - Updated - - -

I like how you mention about camera angles. So how many camera angles do you need to show that Franks's hand is on Douglas's face and in contact with the "eye area"? Note the law 10.4 (m) says contact with the eye area, rather than just specifically eye gouging. And if that's not enough how is Franks' actions within the spirit of the game (law 10)?

Foul play is anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.

As the self appointed referee of this discussion forum you should at least recognise that Franks trying to obstruct Douglas's face at that Maul contravenes this.

People like me bleat about consistency because that is how laws should be applied, otherwise it makes a mockery of them if three instances of players making contact with players' faces, and in the vicinity of the eye, get lengthy bans and one where it is not even considered a yellow card. It just leads to a sense of grievance that certain nations are above the law. How Poite or the citing commissioner in this case could miss it is a complete travesty and they should both be held to account by World Rugby.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Its very likely that on another camera angle, that we haven't seen, there is clear evidence that there was no contact with the eyes and no eye-gouge and he will have made his decision based on that footage.

As far as i recall from Galara's incident, there is no need for either contact with the eyes nor eye gouge. Contact with the eye-area is supposed to be enough to warrant a suspension. At least that is what we were told when Galarza received a 9 week ban during the RWC.

Agree about the speculation thing thou. That's what i liked about how WR managed it during the world cup.
It is like in the RWC where the proceedings are documented and the outcomes posted on line somewhere?

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Has anyone seen this by Phipps?

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2016/08/nick-phipps-f-fekitoas-boot-into-row-z.html?m=1

Appalling sportsmanship but it did make me laugh. You know your team's doing pretty awful when you have to resort to throwing away their boots.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Hahahaha, that hilarious and ridiculously childish.
As you say, shows what things came to in that match :lol:

 

[eidde]

Shocked Franks hasn't been cited as an All Blacks fan. Ridiculous decision, clearly dangerous and unnecessary play and was all over the news. Maybe we need a citing commission panel rather than a single officer, because missing an infringement like that is inexcusable. Can Australia appeal the non-ruling?

Re the coach of the year argument, I agree with whoever said Eddie Jones should have got coach of the year last year.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Australia didn't complain about it.

 

[RoosTah]

Utter rubbish...just complete BS...he did no such thing!! You have no idea what you are talking about!

Hansen was appointed as Graham Henry's assistant coach at the same time that Henry himself was appointed (2004) and was his assistant until 2011 when Henry retired. BOTH were instrumental in the rebuild after the 2007 disaster, and it was one of Graham Henry's key conditions when he asked to be reappointed in 2008, that Hansen also be reappointed to his team.

But you go ahead and spout your rubbish. Never let the truth get it the way of bullshit!

I've got plenty of time for you mate, but you didn't refute the point at all there; all you did was yell rubbish and bull****.

Yes, Hansen was assistant coach to Henry, but that just reinforces the point; he himself is the product of the Henry system. He's never struck out on his own and done anything anywhere where things aren't so sweet as NZ, where everything feeds into the ABs.

Thats the distinction a lot of us make between what makes a great coach, and frankly until Hansen strikes out on his own and takes on a genuinely difficult job we just won't know his worth.

Thats why Eddie Jones deserved the coach of the year award last year - we've seen him in multiple roles and with Japan he did something incredible with very little to work with. Could Hansen have achieved what Eddie did? I seriously doubt it, if only because he's been insulated so long in the NZ system that he could never have navigated the political **** fights in Japan nor grasped the culture.

 

[nzlizard]

Has anyone seen this by Phipps?

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2016/08/nick-phipps-f-fekitoas-boot-into-row-z.html?m=1

Appalling sportsmanship but it did make me laugh. You know your team's doing pretty awful when you have to resort to throwing away their boots.

Just saw this now, pretty lol.

Desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Throwing boots away is fairly standard professional gamesmanship, and not particularly objectionable.

Never seen someone use it as an opportunity to practice their outfield throwing though...

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I think Phipps is pretty lucky with that throw TBH. If it had hit someone in the crowd and they'd been hurt I wouldn't have thought it would be too extreme for the victim to press charges of some sort.

I'm making something out of nothing though.

 

[eidde]

a boot hitting someone in the crowd? wouldn't the ball be far more likely to cause injury?

Looks hilarious though..... like a really athletic kindergartener......

 

[nzlizard]

Show you how desperate Aussie was though, anything to slow the game down and help them.

You reckon if they put that much effort into actually playing rugby they might get better at it.

 

[RoosTah]

Show you how desperate Aussie was though, anything to slow the game down and help them.

You reckon if they put that much effort into actually playing rugby they might get better at it.

Not many people play the game here mate... It's literally fallen to out fifth biggest sport on all the important measures (money, popularity, participation etc).

 

[nik]

I've got plenty of time for you mate, but you didn't refute the point at all there; all you did was yell rubbish and bull****.

Yes, Hansen was assistant coach to Henry, but that just reinforces the point; he himself is the product of the Henry system. He's never struck out on his own and done anything anywhere where things aren't so sweet as NZ, where everything feeds into the ABs.

Thats the distinction a lot of us make between what makes a great coach, and frankly until Hansen strikes out on his own and takes on a genuinely difficult job we just won't know his worth.

Thats why Eddie Jones deserved the coach of the year award last year - we've seen him in multiple roles and with Japan he did something incredible with very little to work with. Could Hansen have achieved what Eddie did? I seriously doubt it, if only because he's been insulated so long in the NZ system that he could never have navigated the political **** fights in Japan nor grasped the culture.

He did coach Wales. Took them into the 1/4s and scared England a bit in 2003 World Cup. Later on that Wales team went on to win multiple 6 nations ***les and the Welsh coach at the time (Ruddock?) credited Hanson for the work he had done.

Hanson is the most successful All Blacks coach. Yes he was appointed by Henry, but behind the scenes how do you know if it was Henry creating all the systems in places or was it a collaborative effort between Henry, Hanson and Smith?

Fact is Hanson has morphed this team AB to be the best ever. Some say coaching ABs is the hardest job in NZ, the expectation is sky high. You get criticised heavily for the losses and criticised even when you win. It's no easy gig to coach the All Blacks, just ask all the previous coaches.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, Hansen was assistant coach to Henry, but that just reinforces the point; he himself is the product of the Henry system. He's never struck out on his own and done anything anywhere where things aren't so sweet as NZ, where everything feeds into the ABs..

So you don't think Hansen had any input in to the way Ted did things, you think he was just along for the ride? If this is your view, you are quite simply wrong.

You should read this before disparaging people you obviously know nothing about

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11650751

(I know you probably won't but the opportunity is there of you want to be honest about the remarks you have been making)

 

[RoosTah]

So you don't think Hansen had any input in to the way Ted did things, you think he was just along for the ride? If this is your view, you are quite simply wrong.

You should read this before disparaging people you obviously know nothing about

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11650751

(I know you probably won't but the opportunity is there of you want to be honest about the remarks you have been making)

"Disparaging"? Who's disparaging Hansen? All I've said the entire time is coaching the dream team and taking over from a master who has made them into a better side than ever before - even by their already high standards - isn't a platform on which you can reasonably call a bloke a coaching genius.

I've written that Hansen may be as brilliant as you claim, but until we've seen him take on a gig where he doesn't have NZ's perfectly geared structures feeding into his national side and all the talent that entails, then it's frankly pretty hard to call him a genius in the same way it's silly to be calling a bloke like Tim Sheens a genius just because he coached an all star Kangaroos to a record winning run that included a thumping of a very talented NZ in a WC final.

You're obviously quite emotionally invested in the bloke, but the point I'm making is a perfectly fair and reasonable one and most non kiwis here seem to agree.

 

[Maxwell]

Roostah you are talking about something that may never happen.

Hansen should be judged on what he has done. The AB's have lost considerable experience yet the team rolls on. This doesn't just happen on its own. The skill level of the players from 1-15 is phenominal. The ability of AB forward with ball in hand and footwork is something the Wallabies just don't have at the moment. Again Hanson & co must take huge credit for this.

The AB's have always had the conveyor belt of talent but it could be argued that the skill level has never been so high. This isn't just the result of the talent pool.

IMO Australian rugby needs to lose the obsession with the private schools as the main feeder for rugby and think further afield. I remember days gone by where the NSW CHS schools were very strong.

 

[smartcooky]

"Disparaging"? Who's disparaging Hansen?

You are.
[TEXTAREA]
dis·par·ag·ing

diˈsperijiNG/
adjective
adjective: disparaging
expressing the opinion that something is of little worth;[/TEXTAREA]

"Hansen walked into a gig where Henry had built a brilliant machine and all he did was keep it running."

I consider this to be a disparaging remark, one that expresses your opinion that Hansen is of little worth to an already excellent team.

IMO, he has taken an already excellent team, and along Wayne Smith and Ian Foster has made it even better. That is an opinion that is pretty much universally agreed among the NZ media,; the same media, by the way, who were so critical of his appointment in 2012.