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="Ragey Erasmus" data-source="post: 815596" data-attributes="member: 56232"><p>You don't know what an arugment from authority is do you? Firstly no, I do not entirely agree with their decisions apart from in the broader sense that what they both did should have been punished. Secondly, at no point did I try to use their decisions as justification for how I'm right, unlike you. I'm merely pointing out that, for the sake of consistency, you cannot have 2 people being harshly punished for something that had not previously punished like that only to then have someone else not be punished at all for something identical. It's the fact that you have gone on and on about how the officials supported your view point and yet completely ignore the fact that in the past they DIDN'T agree with you. What is it? Are you trying to tell me *le gasp* <em><u>officials can get it wrong?</u></em></p><p></p><p>Here's the thing, we do think that hands near the eyes is reckless and punishable as such as the chance to cause injury is far higher. I think the Ashton and Francis incidents were harsh due to lack of precedence and directive stating explicitly it would be harshly punished but now that has happened, it needs to be applied equally. If nothing else the Franks incident needs to prompt the WR body to write a directive clarifying the matter and also reign in referees individual interpretation. If the difference between no punishment at all and a 10 week ban for the same offense boils down to personal opinion, it makes a mockery of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ragey Erasmus, post: 815596, member: 56232"] You don't know what an arugment from authority is do you? Firstly no, I do not entirely agree with their decisions apart from in the broader sense that what they both did should have been punished. Secondly, at no point did I try to use their decisions as justification for how I'm right, unlike you. I'm merely pointing out that, for the sake of consistency, you cannot have 2 people being harshly punished for something that had not previously punished like that only to then have someone else not be punished at all for something identical. It's the fact that you have gone on and on about how the officials supported your view point and yet completely ignore the fact that in the past they DIDN'T agree with you. What is it? Are you trying to tell me *le gasp* [I][U]officials can get it wrong?[/U][/I] Here's the thing, we do think that hands near the eyes is reckless and punishable as such as the chance to cause injury is far higher. I think the Ashton and Francis incidents were harsh due to lack of precedence and directive stating explicitly it would be harshly punished but now that has happened, it needs to be applied equally. If nothing else the Franks incident needs to prompt the WR body to write a directive clarifying the matter and also reign in referees individual interpretation. If the difference between no punishment at all and a 10 week ban for the same offense boils down to personal opinion, it makes a mockery of the game. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
Top