Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ncurd" data-source="post: 815153" data-attributes="member: 72205"><p>Okay first off I'm obviously not technically minded in that way and know all the terms (although I do like just like every topic underneath the sun do find it interesting). But I wasn't suggesting it was forced perspective (which I know what it is) just that a head on camera angle doesn't nessarially tell the whole truth of what it's in the picture. As is clear from both angles one is cleary not telling us 'the truth' of what happened.</p><p></p><p>As to the lawyer the clear difference for me is that the arguement is put forward to more than one person (I think it's currently three?) coming together to make the best judgement. Not the judgement of one person. I think especially with the 24 hour time limit that a citing commisioner should just be asking if there is sufficent evidence for it to go the board not whether a likely guilty verdict can be obtained. Afterall this is not a court of law we shouldn't really be caring if it warrants wasting the boards time.</p><p></p><p>The issue I have is one of consistency and it doesn't really matter if the Franks decision is correct or Ashton is correct. The disparagery between the two resulting disciplinary actions is hugely problematic in my book and it's quite clear the authorities don't want to explain themselves to why both should be treated differently. They've got one wrong and they are not making it clear which is the correct view.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ncurd, post: 815153, member: 72205"] Okay first off I'm obviously not technically minded in that way and know all the terms (although I do like just like every topic underneath the sun do find it interesting). But I wasn't suggesting it was forced perspective (which I know what it is) just that a head on camera angle doesn't nessarially tell the whole truth of what it's in the picture. As is clear from both angles one is cleary not telling us 'the truth' of what happened. As to the lawyer the clear difference for me is that the arguement is put forward to more than one person (I think it's currently three?) coming together to make the best judgement. Not the judgement of one person. I think especially with the 24 hour time limit that a citing commisioner should just be asking if there is sufficent evidence for it to go the board not whether a likely guilty verdict can be obtained. Afterall this is not a court of law we shouldn't really be caring if it warrants wasting the boards time. The issue I have is one of consistency and it doesn't really matter if the Franks decision is correct or Ashton is correct. The disparagery between the two resulting disciplinary actions is hugely problematic in my book and it's quite clear the authorities don't want to explain themselves to why both should be treated differently. They've got one wrong and they are not making it clear which is the correct view. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
Top