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

[Larksea]

I think your exaggerating. All I'm saying is that it didn't happen out of the refs view at the bottom of a ruck away from live camera or ref view or away from the play. Romain Poite had the best view of everyone of what happened, it happened right inf front of him and he clearly saw it, told him to stop, he stopped. Play on. He had the best view, If he had actually seen fingers in eyes, it would have ended differently.

 

[Peat]

I think your exaggerating. All I'm saying is that it didn't happen out of the refs view at the bottom of a ruck away from live camera or ref view or away from the play. Romain Poite had the best view of everyone of what happened, it happened right inf front of him and he clearly saw it, told him to stop, he stopped. Play on. He had the best view, If he had actually seen fingers in eyes, it would have ended differently.

The fingers don't have to go in the eyes. Reckless contact with with the eye or eye area is a reason given for fairly long suspensions. I haven't seen it from Poite's angle so I can't be completely sure but based on the angles I have seen, that is a stone cold ban and very similar levels of contact to bans given in the NH.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think your exaggerating. All I'm saying is that it didn't happen out of the refs view at the bottom of a ruck away from live camera or ref view or away from the play. Romain Poite had the best view of everyone of what happened, it happened right inf front of him and he clearly saw it, told him to stop, he stopped. Play on. He had the best view, If he had actually seen fingers in eyes, it would have ended differently.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/18/304F574800000578-3405342-image-m-54_1453141998559.jpg That degree of contact was deemed enough for a 10 week ban
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/14/10/322C694400000578-3490576-image-a-13_1457951259816.jpg Likewise here where it went across his nose more than anything

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/...pg&width=650&api_key=kq7wnrk4eun47vz9c5xuj3mc

Give me ONE reason why that hand position is any more excusible. Are we operating on some weird system where if the ref sees you gouging, it's fine but if he doesn't it's a yellow and a ban!? Seriously there is no way this can be justified. He gouged and it doesn't matter if he stopped or not, he still did it!

 

[smartcooky]

My two cents :
The ref's clear view on the incident from two yards away was (another) blatant proof of the special treatment the All Blacks get. Simple as that.
It just makes Rugby look ridiculous.

Utter bollocks, as we have come to expect from you!

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Roman Poite didn't penalise Franks because he SAW that Franks was not actually gouging Douglas. The angle he was at gave him a better view than either of the camera angles I have seen so far.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/18/304F574800000578-3405342-image-m-54_1453141998559.jpg That degree of contact was deemed enough for a 10 week ban
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/14/10/322C694400000578-3490576-image-a-13_1457951259816.jpg Likewise here where it went across his nose more than anything

Keep in mind that BOTH of these incidents were backed up with complaints from the teams and players involved, and with medical evidence of injury to the victims. So far, we haven't heard jack schitt from Kane Douglas.

If Douglas really was eye-gouged, and is saying nothing, then he is complicit in allowing Franks to escape a possible suspension!!

Are we operating on some weird system where if the ref sees you gouging, it's fine but if he doesn't it's a yellow and a ban!? Seriously there is no way this can be justified. He gouged and it doesn't matter if he stopped or not, he still did it!

Wait, what? You mean there was actual gouging? You have seen a video/photo of Franks' fingers actually penetrating Kane Douglas' eye socket(s)?

Well, if so, that would change everything... a lot.

I will expect that WR will overturn the lack of citing once they see this footage

 

[die_mole]

of course it's an All Black conspiracy... it could never just be that the ref just ****ed up and the southern hemisphere likes to have definitive proof of eye gouging before they suspend a guy for 8 weeks

what this shows is that World Rugby needs to have the ultimate authority on sanctions so that we can have consistency in this game

 

[smartcooky]

of course it's an All Black conspiracy... it could never just be that the ref just ****ed up and the southern hemisphere likes to have definitive proof of eye gouging before they suspend a guy for 8 weeks

what this shows is that World Rugby needs to have the ultimate authority on sanctions so that we can have consistency in this game

There's big, fat, gaping hole in your conspiracy theory.... a NH referee, and a French one to boot!!

 

[die_mole]

There's big, fat, gaping hole in your conspiracy theory.... a NH referee, and a French one to boot!!

what conspiracy theory?

i offered that there was a conspiracy, then offered two pieces of evidence showing why there isn't a conspiracy

i feel bad for you

 

[eidde]

There's big, fat, gaping hole in your conspiracy theory.... a NH referee, and a French one to boot!!

Ummmm... we can't see what the ref saw, (he could have been thinking of his pet axolotls at that point) and the citing commissioner was an NZer was he not? EDIT: haha just saw moles reply. still links....

Anyhow agree WR needs to have final say, and also agree with earlier comments that commissioner needs to release a match report explaining his decisions. Even better make it a panel of commissioners.

 

[die_mole]

Ummmm... we can't see what the ref saw, (he could have been thinking of his pet axolotls at that point) and the citing commissioner was an NZer was he not? EDIT: haha just saw moles reply. still links....

Anyhow agree WR needs to have final say, and also agree with earlier comments that commissioner needs to release a match report explaining his decisions. Even better make it a panel of commissioners.

we definitely know what he saw as he told franks to remove his hand... i just think he did a **** job

 

[smartcooky]

...the citing commissioner was an NZer was he not?

Saffa

As I said earlier, RC match CCs are always neutral. Only at SR level do they use a CC from the host country

 

[Larksea]

what I have been saying is that the ref say it and was in a better position and had a better view of it than anyone, better than any of the camera angles. So apart from the fact its actually his job is he not the best person to judge the situation?

anyway change of subject because this is getting a bit ridiculous.

What did others make of Cheika's pre-game interview? It really showed a lot in his attitude and body language. He was really bitter, closed off and defensive. Like he's already lost the game and the press & public were already at his door. I don't know if it was because he had just been in the changing room spitting tacks at his team to fire them up or if something else had got to him? But it was really bizarre...

Overall the game was a bit of a write-off. All the ****le the Aussies bought was over the top. no one is actually talking about the game I don't think it did either the Aussies or AB's any good in terms of progress.

If anything, I recon its worth talking about how well ALB did. I think he had an impressive debut, was involved, made an impact and made the correct calls, involved in some trys. Great Debut.

 

[eidde]

ugh, my comment was rubbish. Sorry guys.

agree ALB did really well. Creates an interesting debate going forward when the four guys ahead of him on the pecking order come back into contention....

 

[Peat]

I've seen refs stare right at events that earned citings and only issue a penalty enough times that I don't really have confidence in Poite or any other ref being right there. I'd want to see a camera angle that allowed them to say definitively "There was no contact" before agreeing with them.

I also don't trust a French ref to enforce the laws on eye contact as I'd expect them as there seems to be a big cultural difference between them and the UK. Maybe the SH and the UK too. If Franks had done that in the UK I'd remove him from my fantasy team straight away. *pause* No, wait, if he'd done that in a club match. In an international... yeah, might have got away with it.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I agree ALB had a great debut but I did notice a few of his passes being dropped. Obviously that could just be bad luck and the receiver dropped it for no real reason, but it happened enough that I suspect there was something slightly off about his passing. It's a little thing though and should be easy to correct. Other than that, a solid debut and I'd like to see him play the rest of the RC (When do Crotty and Moala return? At this point I think we've got to accept that Ngatai isn't a real option anymore, which is a massive shame for him, but it's not like the ABs are lacking options).

 

[Bee]

Utter bollocks, as we have come to expect from you!

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Roman Poite didn't penalise Franks because he SAW that Franks was not actually gouging Douglas. The angle he was at gave him a better view than either of the camera angles I have seen so far.

Because I do not share your political views ?

Hands in face alone are to be penalized, if he gauges the eyes just makes the length of the suspension he should get...

 

[smartcooky]

Hands in face alone are to be penalized, if he gauges the eyes just makes the length of the suspension he should get...

Ok, I wasn't going to post on this issue again, but considering this very point came up on another forum, I thought it would be good to address your comment.

There is a tendency among fans to consider that a hand around or near the eye area must be an automatic red card or citing, but unlike a punch, there is NO WR directive to referees/citing officials that makes contact with the eye area either an automatic red card or citing (perhaps there should be, but currently there isn't). Neither is there a directive outlining a protocol that starts a red and works down as there is for a spear tackle or a tackle in the air. Contact with the eye-area is treated like any other foul play infringement such as a dangerous tackle i.e. it is left to the judgement of the referee, and later, the citing officer. It is up to them to judge whether what they have seen passes the "red card test".

In this case, the referee had the best angle (certainly better than either of the two camera angles I have seen). From his position, he could see Kane Douglas' face. Obviously he decided that it did not meet the criteria for a yellow card, let alone a red card, and decided that warning Franks off was sufficient. Now, we can complain about that all we like, but in the end, within the 80 minutes, it was HIS decision to make, and his alone.

The checks and balances on the referees decisions as regards temporary suspensions and sending-offs is in the purview of the Citing Commissioner, who has unfettered access to ALL camera angles. Guess what? He came to the same conclusions as the referee.... that Franks' actions did not pass the "red card test". Not only that, he didn't think it passed the "yellow card test" either, otherwise he would have issued a Citing Commissioner Warning. Once again, we can jump up and down all we like, but in the end, within the citing period after the match, it was HIS decision to make, and his alone.

Now none of this means that I think what Franks did was OK. IMO, he should probably have been cited. I am simply trying to make a reasonable stab at understanding why he wasn't.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

There is a tendency among fans to consider that a hand around or near the eye area must be an automatic red card or citing, but unlike a punch, there is NO WR directive to referees/citing officials that makes contact with the eye area either an automatic red card or citing (perhaps there should be, but currently there isn't).

That's precisely the problem. When an Argentine or an English placed their hands in an opponents eye area, despite the lack of a directive, they were cited and suspended for 9 and 13 weeks.
Directive or not, it is hard not to see the double standard.

And regarding the potential other camera angles, lets be reasonable: when there are 10 cameras showing a play, if 1 camera shows crystal clear contact with the eye area and 9 do not, the player will and should be cited and punished. Anyone with internet access and interest in the subject has seen at least one clear take/picture of the incident where the hand of the nz player is on the Australian's eye area.
No camera angle will "unmake" that. They might complement it, but there is no question his hand was on the Australian's eye area.

Claiming there is this potential other camera angle that exonerates him, only not to reveal such footage just adds insult to injury.
If there is such magical evidence, then bloody show it. If they don't, then they lose their moral high ground to complain when the rest of the planet screams double standard.

 

[smartcooky]

That's precisely the problem. When an Argentine or an English placed their hands in an opponents eye area, despite the lack of a directive, they were cited and suspended for 9 and 13 weeks.
Directive or not, it is hard not to see the double standard.

And that is the problem with the Citing Commissioner not having to explain his decisions. Absent that explanation, you see the Franks incident as the same as the others, whereas the CCs involved may have seen them as very different.

And regarding the potential other camera angles, lets be reasonable: when there are 10 cameras showing a play, if 1 camera shows crystal clear contact with the eye area and 9 do not, the player will and should be cited and punished. Anyone with internet access and interest in the subject has seen at least one clear take/picture of the incident where the hand of the nz player is on the Australian's eye area.
No camera angle will "unmake" that. They might complement it, but there is no question his hand was on the Australian's eye area.

And this is where I disagree.

Neither of the camera angles we have seen show eye-gouging (the actual citable infringement).

The only thing they clearly show is contact with the eye-area, which, of itself, is not a citable offence unless it is serious enough so that Referee or Citing Officer judges it to pass the red card test.

Neither of them did.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

And this is where I disagree.

Neither of the camera angles we have seen show eye-gouging (the actual citable infringement).

The only thing they clearly show is contact with the eye-area, which, of itself, is not a citable offence unless it is serious enough so that Referee or Citing Officer judges it to pass the red card test.

Neither of them did.

This is not how it is treated by RFU. http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...RFURegulation19Appendix22016-2017_English.pdf

Law 10.4 (m) I.e. It specifically states that contact with the eye/eye area is a citeable offence. No mention of eye gouging, which presumably would be the top end. Maybe this is where the uneven application of the laws comes from.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

And this is where I disagree.

Neither of the camera angles we have seen show eye-gouging (the actual citable infringement).

Well, it appears you disagree with the words you just put in my mouth as i never, not once, said there was eye-gouging.

The only thing they clearly show is contact with the eye-area, which, of itself, is not a citable offence unless it is serious enough so that Referee or Citing Officer judges it to pass the red card test.

If that is the case, then you are just changing the type of inconsistency but the inconsistency itself still remains.
They would need to explain why very, very similar instances are deemed "serious enough" when an Galarza or the English player (cannot recall his name) commits them but not when Franks is involved.

Again, i am not a big fan of conspiracy theories so lets not go there. I basically see 3 similar incidents and two get citations and lengthy bans while the other doesn't. The fact that the one that gets away is a nz player is irrelevant to me.