Adam Thomson gets 1 week ban

[TRF_stormer2010]

it is... Duh!!

lol

 

[nickdnz]

Haha. I suppose it is a conspiracy theory of sorts. But it's not as far fetched as 'all referees want NZ to win' etc, which are usually pretty baseless. Here is what has happened:

A player gets sited for an incident. The IRB issue a 1 week suspension. The story gets a lot of media attention by the British media. The IRB then review their own punishment because their original punishment was too lenient. Now clearly something has happened between them deciding that one week was enough - to then deciding that it wasn't enough, and short of everyone in the IRB suffering from dissociative identity disorder, I think it's fair to presume that the IRB is reacting to public perception of their decision - perpetuated by a vocal British press.

Now I'm not saying this has anything to do with disliking New Zealanders. What I am saying is that the IRB clearly has been influenced by external pressure, otherwise I don't see why the review is taking place. It's not on the higher level of offences anyway and compared to other incidents this year it's on a much lower scale. It's not the first time this has happened either - the Mealamu/Hartley incident is a big example of this, with the key difference between the two being the reaction of the incidents by British media. Like I said, short of an unlikely change of heart, why has this particular incident been put on review? The only reasonable explanation I can think of seems to have me wearing a tinfoil hat.

Like I said - I don't think it has all that much to do with New Zealand. If it was a South African I'm sure they would have had a similar situation. Surely someone else can see a certan level of inconsistency? Although I suppose with citings the IRB does tend to hand out punishments by rolling dice.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The IRB isn't just one person though.
Whoever it was who decided it, decided that a 1 week ban, whereas the guy(s?) above him have decided he's done it wrong.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peat]

Like I said - I don't think it has all that much to do with New Zealand. If it was a South African I'm sure they would have had a similar situation. Surely someone else can see a certan level of inconsistency? Although I suppose with citings the IRB does tend to hand out punishments by rolling dice.

Of course I can.

To me however, that just says the IRB is an incompetent organisation which is not acting in universal lockstep. And we all win and lose in the lottery.

 

[FlukeArtist]

I think part of the reason for this perception (or "conspiracy theory"...whatever- call it what you want) is that the IRB waited so long after the initial decision (essentially til after Thomson's initial ban ended) before deciding to take action.
In the meantime Gosper has been discussing the matter with Brian Moore, Stephen Jones et al.

It's simply a bad look for Gosper and the IRB.

If they (IRB were really as concerned about the perception of the game and the sport as a whole, then they should/would have acted swiftly, rather than entering into discussion with British hacks before making the call.

Now that Gosper and the IRB have set the precedent that they will now step in and possibly overrule the decision of the judiciary, People on twitter have now rightfully asked Gosper if he will now go back and review the McCaw attacks this year and the lenient penalties handed out to Greyling & Higginbotham.
To which Gosper has replied that those games don't fall under IRB jurisdiction !!?

In the press release about the judicary review, the IRB stated:
"As custodians of Rugby worldwide, the IRB has a duty to protect its image, values and integrity together with the welfare of players at all levels in order that the sport can continue its unprecedented growth and welcome more men, women and children to the Rugby family"

Now- if the IRB have no jurisdiction over the whole Quad nations (I hate the name "Rugby Championship"), that makes that statement completely impotent.
So, I'm drawing my own conclusions here, but that say to me that the only jurisdction they have is over international rugby that involve NH teams.
All that says to me is, "We're the IRB, and we'll look after the best interests of NH rugby"

To my mind, this whole saga has left the IRB looking seriously inept and utterly weak.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7992678/Adam-Thomsons-ban-extended-to-two-weeks

Ban increased to two weeks, which Thomson will have already served after the upcoming fixtures. He's free to play against England in a week.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7992678/Adam-Thomsons-ban-extended-to-two-weeks

Ban increased to two weeks, which Thomson will have already served after the upcoming fixtures. He's free to play against England in a week.

That just makes this situation even more ridiculous...

 

[Helmy]

Is there any sporting body that does have competent bosses? Seriously, they're all as useless as the other.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

That just makes this situation even more ridiculous...

Yeah, when they come out and say the ban was far too lenient, then extend it only a week... What the heck.

 

[Draggs]

Yeah, when they come out and say the ban was far too lenient, then extend it only a week... What the heck.

Clears their plate, they can now say that they did something.
Job done.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

It's a bit odd to speak out about a ban that was only slightly too short - I think it makes them look stupid. If they at least had handed out a three or four week ban there would've been some point to commenting on how short it was.

 

[tenpm]

Two weeks probably was the right call, just wish it was the original sentence instead of having all this mess.