South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

thomond2006

Billysays no wrote: »

mjohnston it sums the game. we can only get our wingers involved with a boxkick, we can only crash ball otherwise. thats it. no more ideas

Watch the game. To say the wingers were only involved in attacks through box kicks is completely false. Watch the game back and tell me otherwise.

Billysays no

thomond2006 wrote: »

Watch the game. To say the wingers were only involved in attacks through box kicks is completely false. Watch the game back and tell me otherwise.

thomond, at some point in a game a winger is going to touch a ball. can you explain why a winger will never score a try in a game under current administration, and i mean a proper game not italy or scotland

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Billysays no wrote: »

thomond, at some point in a game a winger is going to touch a ball. can you explain why a winger will never score a try in a game under current administration, and i mean a proper game not italy or scotland

Because our wingers are average, at best.

thomond2006

Billysays no wrote: »

thomond, at some point in a game a winger is going to touch a ball. can you explain why a winger will never score a try in a game under current administration, and i mean a proper game not italy or scotland

Don't move the goalposts. You said our wingers didn't get involved except for box kicks, you imply we can only crash ball. That is not true. I don't care who scores the tries, it's irrelevant.

Billysays no

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Because our wingers are average, at best.

Tickle that is so wrong. Murray just plays crash ball and everybody seems to love it. Well I don't.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Billysays no wrote: »

Tickle that is so wrong. Murray just plays crash ball and everybody seems to love it. Well I don't.

Murray is the SH. He's not the coach. Unless a winger is standing right next to him how is he supposed to pass it to them? He passes it to someone on either side of him, they pass it to the next person, or don't. Your outrage implies that Murray literally never passes the ball and just takes it into contact himself everytime, which is not what happens.

Our wingers are average and that is a problem we have and that is why Schmidt has developed a game plan that plays to our strengths.

Billysays no

thomond2006 wrote: »

Don't move the goalposts. You said our wingers didn't get involved except for box kicks, you imply we can only crash ball. That is not true. I don't care who scores the tries, it's irrelevant.

I care. I really care. I want ability over brawn. I wan't to be excited. I wan't to enjoy a game. I wan't an experience.

Stheno

Billysays no wrote: »

I care. I really care. I want ability over brawn. I wan't to be excited. I wan't to enjoy a game. I wan't an experience.

Did you not get all if that Saturday?

Billysays no

Stheno wrote: »

Did you not get all if that Saturday?

got that with the u-20s. fantastic. got that with wales, with, all blacks with england. that was it

so what would i change. nothing. SA will kill us and it might as well be with JOE'S SELECTION. So it will be two walls and utterly horrible. But it is us? Munster, Leinster, thats it?

Hagz

Just me to clarify you. there were more Ulster player in the starting body than of Munster or Leinster. in truthful fact there were no Leinster player in the line of backs. So no Munster, Leinster. JOE'S SELECTION Ulster is it?

Billysays no

Hagz wrote: »

Just me to clarify you. there were more Ulster player in the starting body than of Munster or Leinster. in truthful fact there were no Leinster player in the line of backs. So no Munster, Leinster. JOE'S SELECTION Ulster is it?

How they play hagz, nothing related to ulster and connacht. Its bang stuff the munster and leinster teams know best.

Yeah_Right

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I like the guy who thinks they're so bad if he watches a replay of the 95 final they'll lose it too

It would make Invictus watchable for me.

Billysays no

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Murray is the SH. He's not the coach. Unless a winger is standing right next to him how is he supposed to pass it to them? He passes it to someone on either side of him, they pass it to the next person, or don't. Your outrage implies that Murray literally never passes the ball and just takes it into contact himself everytime, which is not what happens.

Our wingers are average and that is a problem we have and that is why Schmidt has developed a game plan that plays to our strengths.

we have very very good wingers. we need to understand their function

nehe milner skudder

MJohnston wrote: »

Clearly no intent really, and he was punished enough on the day.

All intent in my opinion.shoulder to head , duty of care. All the usual tropes.

He was like an Exocet.

phog

thomond2006 wrote: »

Here's your answer.



http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/cj-stander-receives-one-week-ban-for-pat-lambie-tackle-1.2683390

So it wasn't clear cut at all, in fact there were instances in the very game where CJ was carded that weren't punished nor cited

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

So it wasn't clear cut at all, in fact there were instances in the very game where CJ was carded that weren't punished nor cited

Nothing that you or anyone else has posted suggests the ban was there to cover up poor officiating. If they are going to ban someone it's only right that they do their due diligence first. They wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. We simply don't know how much of that due diligence was there to determine the seriousness of the offence and how much was to determine overall guilt. To say the deliberation taking time meant there was a possibility that he may be found innocent is disingenuous. It may have meant that. It may also have meant that they needed to determine the level of the offence, which is actually far more likely really.

EDIT: it's also worth pointing out that this isn't this cotton commissioners first drawn out deliberation. He has a bit of a history taking his time which only further indicates a business as usual situation.

MJohnston

Billysays no wrote: »

mjohnston it sums the game. we can only get our wingers involved with a boxkick, we can only crash ball otherwise. thats it. no more ideas. can i say i really, really, really don't like joe or would somebody get upset?

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Did you even watch the game? Just as one example, Payne made a couple of absolutely delicious off loads to Trimble on the wing and I believe we scored soon after off the back of both of those.

Additionally, the kick and chase is one of our most potent weapons, and it'd be really foolish to suggest we should minimise it. One of the best moments of the game was when PJ hit the post with a penalty kick and when SA caught the rebound they were immediately smothered by Earls and then a bunch more then players soon after. That's a massive asset and we should use it and not write it off because a minority think it's boring (the rest of us don't).

You can have whatever feelings you want about a particular person, but you need to back that up with coherent disagreements about his decisions, which to be truly honest, I don't think you've managed at all since this tour began. You're beating Schmidt with the stick of former failings, and not offering any opportunity to allow for redemption, which is a real shame, because I think if you did, you'd be able to let yourself watch last Saturday's match and see how they've changed.

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

Nothing that you or anyone else has posted suggests the ban was there to cover up poor officiating. If they are going to ban someone it's only right that they do their due diligence first. They wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. We simply don't know how much of that due diligence was there to determine the seriousness of the offence and how much was to determine overall guilt. To say the deliberation taking time meant there was a possibility that he may be found innocent is disingenuous. It may have meant that. It may also have meant that they needed to determine the level of the offence, which is actually far more likely really.

EDIT: it's also worth pointing out that this isn't this cotton commissioners first drawn out deliberation. He has a bit of a history taking his time which only further indicates a business as usual situation.

phog wrote: »

So it wasn't clear cut at all, in fact there were instances in the very game where CJ was carded that weren't punished nor cited

You have to judge incidents on their own merits. The article says there was a similar incident but the level of seriousness was different. From reading the article you linked the JO was thorough in his judgement and issued the minimum sanction after finding Stander guilty.

.ak

Billysays no wrote: »

Zzippy I fight a corner in what I believe. I don't apologize for that. I don't shower abuse on other users as abuse has been heavily showered on me.

You've been around here long enough to know not to argue/reply to a mod on thread.

The mod decision is final, if you have an issue with it PM the mod directly.

You've bitched and moaned about the way Ireland play - without being able to back up your posts with any logic or reason - you've ignored zzippy's warning and by doing so you've dragged the threat further down. At this stage I don't know if you're just trolling or not... No more warnings after this. You'll be taking a break from the forum soon if you keep this up.

RoundBox11

Billysays no wrote: »

I care. I really care. I want ability over brawn. I wan't to be excited. I wan't to enjoy a game. I wan't an experience.

So am I right in assuming you only developed your connacht obsession within the last year then, since they started clicking in attack?

former total

Adbrowne wrote: »

You have to judge incidents on their own merits. The article says there was a similar incident but the level of seriousness was different. From reading the article you linked the JO was thorough in his judgement and issued the minimum sanction after finding Stander guilty.

If there was anything in the le Roux incident mentioned in that report, you can be 100% sure it would have been discussed to death on boards.

I can understand how people refused to see anything wrong in Stander's actions, we see it every time an Irish guy lands in trouble, but to argue that getting a suspension is somehow proof that he did nothing wrong, that's a bizarre line of logic.

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Nothing that you or anyone else has posted suggests the ban was there to cover up poor officiating. If they are going to ban someone it's only right that they do their due diligence first. They wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. We simply don't know how much of that due diligence was there to determine the seriousness of the offence and how much was to determine overall guilt. To say the deliberation taking time meant there was a possibility that he may be found innocent is disingenuous. It may have meant that. It may also have meant that they needed to determine the level of the offence, which is actually far more likely really.

EDIT: it's also worth pointing out that this isn't this cotton commissioners first drawn out deliberation. He has a bit of a history taking his time which only further indicates a business as usual situation.

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the right decision to red card CJ then I still can't see how someone would believe that the entire thing is a conspiracy to protect a referee.

Buer

There's some level of mental gymnastics at play here to explain away something that could be perceived as any sort of slight against a fan favourite.

Teferi

I've always been very interested in the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

thomond2006

phog wrote: »

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

It was 2 weeks reduced to 1 after mitigation. There are entry levels for each kind of offence, so one week was not thought up out of thin air. The red card was upheld. Refs have been hung out to dry before, just ask Craig Joubert. Prominent, knowledgeable rugby people's opinions are as relevant as those on here when it comes to disciplinary sanctions. There has been a clear move to stamp out any unnecessary head impacts and CJ was just unlucky IMO.

I think there's been a lot of overreaction to this. It's a one week suspension, CJ isn't missing a RWC final and he'll be fresh for the third test.

kuang1

thomond2006 wrote: »

It was 2 weeks reduced to 1 after mitigation. There are entry levels for each kind of offence, so one week was not thought up out of thin air. The red card was upheld. Refs have been hung out to dry before, just ask Craig Joubert. Prominent, knowledgeable rugby people's opinions are as relevant as those on here when it comes to disciplinary sanctions. There has been a clear move to stamp out any unnecessary head impacts and CJ was just unlucky IMO.

I think there's been a lot of overreaction to this. It's a one week suspension, CJ isn't missing a RWC final and he'll be fresh for the third test.

Nicely sums the whole thing up for me.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

You aren't taking everything into account though. Plenty of "prominent, knowledgeable rugby people" have said it was the correct call. You seem to want to pick and choose what you consider to be evidence here. Everything that has happened is entirely consistent with what would have happened had the citing commissioner believed the red card was correct and entirely inconsistent with the citing commissioner believing it was incorrect. Refs have been hung out to dry on a number of occasions this season as well so there isn't even a case to be made for there being much in the way of precedence for covering up for refs.

If the opinion of a small handful of people who are in no way involved in the citing process is enough to make your conclusion on the citing process "obvious" then there can only be some serious mental gymnastics at play here.

jm08

Its a pity there isn't a copy of the judgement. When you read the newspaper report of what was said, they make it sound as if the ref was on trial, not CJ.

After hearing the evidence and submissions made by Gerrie Swart, representative of the player, the Judicial Officer was not satisfied on the balance of probability that the referee, Mathieu Raynal of France, was wrong when he issued the red card to the player.

Surely the Judicial Officer should have been ruling on whether it was a late charge with intent by CJ to injure Lambie, not whether it should have been a Red Card.

Moflojo

I accept the red card decision, reluctantly, but I think Pat Lambie's contribution to his own demise deserves some attention too. Lambie was attempting a disguised chip and chase where he initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' but was actually going to run onto it himself and attempt to reclaim it. As he shaped to kick the ball he looked like any outhalf who's about to kick a Garryowen, and Stander's attempted block reflects that he read it as such too; he jumped high. Ordinarily when an outhalf kicks a bomb like that he will immediately drop back into a sweeping role and allow his chasers (4 chasers set up around Lambie here) to contest the high ball (Biggar being the obvious exception), but in this case Lambie immediately sprinted after his own kick and, unfortunately, ran head first into Stander's hip.

To support my argument I've even gone to the trouble of creating the image below! In it I've overlaid the frame of the video showing Lambie's starting position when he kicks the ball, with Lambie circled in red. The red quadrant is taken from Lambie's starting position, and I've lined up the 22m line with the frame taken from where Stander lands. Stander is circled in yellow just as he lands after the collision. So Stander actually lands at least a metre in front of Lambie's starting position, with the collision between the two players happening two to three metres in front of Lambie's starting position. Given that there were four chasers lined up flat with Lambie, and that Lambie initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' rather than a chip & chase, I'd argue that Stander read it as a bomb and did not anticipate Lambie chasing his own kick.

molloyjh

jm08 wrote: »

Its a pity there isn't a copy of the judgement. When you read the newspaper report of what was said, they make it sound as if the ref was on trial, not CJ.






Surely the Judicial Officer should have been ruling on whether it was a late charge with intent by CJ to injure Lambie, not whether it should have been a Red Card.

If Ireland were challenging the on-field ruling then they would need to adjudicate on that. And they'd need to adjudicate on that before doing anything else.

former total

Moflojo wrote: »

I accept the red card decision, reluctantly, but I think Pat Lambie's contribution to his own demise deserves some attention too. Lambie was attempting a disguised chip and chase where he initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' but was actually going to run onto it himself and attempt to reclaim it. As he shaped to kick the ball he looked like any outhalf who's about to kick a Garryowen, and Stander's attempted block reflects that he read it as such too; he jumped high. Ordinarily when an outhalf kicks a bomb like that he will immediately drop back into a sweeping role and allow his chasers (4 chasers set up around Lambie here) to contest the high ball (Biggar being the obvious exception), but in this case Lambie immediately sprinted after his own kick and, unfortunately, ran head first into Stander's hip.

To support my argument I've even gone to the trouble of creating the image below! In it I've overlaid the frame of the video showing Lambie's starting position when he kicks the ball, with Lambie circled in red. The red quadrant is taken from Lambie's starting position, and I've lined up the 22m line with the frame taken from where Stander lands. Stander is circled in yellow just as he lands after the collision. So Stander actually lands at least a metre in front of Lambie's starting position, with the collision between the two players happening two to three metres in front of Lambie's starting position. Given that there were four chasers lined up flat with Lambie, and that Lambie initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' rather than a chip & chase, I'd argue that Stander read it as a bomb and did not anticipate Lambie chasing his own kick.

Fair play, that's a serious amount of work!

But what's the conclusion? I'm not sure how it's relevant if Stander creamed a player who was going for a garryowen or a player going for a chip & chase, both are equally against the rules.

I suppose you could argue it backs up Stander's lack of intent, but I think the light suspension implies that the judicial officer has already agreed with that.

Edit: sorry, I've just seen the title of the post. No, Lambie did not run into Stander. He is not in any way responsible for his own injury.

molloyjh

Moflojo wrote: »

I accept the red card decision, reluctantly, but I think Pat Lambie's contribution to his own demise deserves some attention too. Lambie was attempting a disguised chip and chase where he initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' but was actually going to run onto it himself and attempt to reclaim it. As he shaped to kick the ball he looked like any outhalf who's about to kick a Garryowen, and Stander's attempted block reflects that he read it as such too; he jumped high. Ordinarily when an outhalf kicks a bomb like that he will immediately drop back into a sweeping role and allow his chasers (4 chasers set up around Lambie here) to contest the high ball (Biggar being the obvious exception), but in this case Lambie immediately sprinted after his own kick and, unfortunately, ran head first into Stander's hip.

To support my argument I've even gone to the trouble of creating the image below! In it I've overlaid the frame of the video showing Lambie's starting position when he kicks the ball, with Lambie circled in red. The red quadrant is taken from Lambie's starting position, and I've lined up the 22m line with the frame taken from where Stander lands. Stander is circled in yellow just as he lands after the collision. So Stander actually lands at least a metre in front of Lambie's starting position, with the collision between the two players happening two to three metres in front of Lambie's starting position. Given that there were four chasers lined up flat with Lambie, and that Lambie initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' rather than a chip & chase, I'd argue that Stander read it as a bomb and did not anticipate Lambie chasing his own kick.

Sorry, but that's seriously reaching again. Lambie ran onto the ball and increased his speed when he received it. Based on the above unless he somehow came to a complete standstill the moment the boot touched his foot (a physical impossibility) Stander was always going to jump into his head.

At the end of the day that's the one and only relevant factor in the card. Stander jumped into Lambies head. Everything else is irrelevant noise. You cannot jump full force into a guys head like that for any reason. The end. It's incredibly dangerous and reckless.

In terms of the citing the minimum entry level for something like that is 2 weeks. Given that it wasn't intentional (and I'm sure CJ was remorseful etc) then it would receive the minimum entry level. With CJs record as good as it is plus the remorse and lovely tie he wore to the hearing it would be normal to reduce that to 1 week. So that is exactly what happened.

Moflojo

former total wrote: »

Fair play, that's a serious amount of work!

But what's the conclusion? I'm not sure how it's relevant if Stander creamed a player who was going for a garryowen or a player going for a chip & chase, both are equally against the rules.

I suppose you could argue it backs up Stander's lack of intent, but I think the light suspension implies that the judicial officer has already agreed with that.

I was just trying to quantify Lambie's contribution to his own injury. Stander has jumped into uncontested space in an attempt to block a kick. Lambie has run into that same space immediately after kicking the ball. There's a strong argument that Lambie has run into Stander just as much as Stander has jumped into Lambie.

If Stander had jumped straight through Lambie's starting position and landed beyond it you could certainly argue there was an attempt to take him out but, given that the two players started about 6 metres apart and met in the middle, it could be argued that there was no foul play at all and it was just an unfortunate collision.

Given that Lambie had four obvious chasers around him (all of them are flat to him, none looking for a pass) it was an unusual decision by Lambie to chase the kick himself.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^Maybe they argued that very point at the hearing to prove there was no intent.

molloyjh

Moflojo wrote: »

There's a strong argument that Lambie has run into Stander just as much as Stander has jumped into Lambie.

No there isn't. Lambie was already moving forward and could not have stopped regardless of what Stander did or did not do. There is absolutely no case at all to be made that Lambie ran into Stander. You seem to be assuming that Lambie could somehow have remained in the exact position he was in when the ball touched his foot despite his momentum, never mind the fact that he never stopped moving forward.

Moflojo

molloyjh wrote: »

No there isn't. Lambie was already moving forward and could not have stopped regardless of what Stander did or did not do. There is absolutely no case at all to be made that Lambie ran into Stander. You seem to be assuming that Lambie could somehow have remained in the exact position he was in when the ball touched his foot despite his momentum, never mind the fact that he never stopped moving forward.

I've compounded my argument by saying it was unusual for Lambie to run forward onto his own kick, given the number of chasers around him and how the kicker's usual role would be to drop back into the pocket to act as sweeper. In that common scenario the kickers tend to put up the bomb and more or less stop where they've kicked the ball and begin to retreat as they assess the opposition's countering options.

molloyjh

Moflojo wrote: »

I've compounded my argument by saying it was unusual for Lambie to run forward onto his own kick, given the number of chasers around him and how the kicker's usual role would be to drop back into the pocket to act as sweeper. In that common scenario the kickers tend to put up the bomb and more or less stop where they've kicked the ball and begin to retreat as they assess the opposition's countering options.

As I've said a couple of times already he was always moving forward. In a situation like you are describing the kicker would tend to receive the ball standing still. He didn't. He ran on to it and accelerated before kicking. Even if he didn't intend to chase it his own momentum would have brought him forward anyway.

bilston

jm08 wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

It's always going to be very tight between those two. It's rare that they are both fit at the same time.

As for the WC I'm pretty sure Fitzgerald was there. Did he not score against Argentina?

He was there, just that Earls was the starter and Luke was on the bench. Earls has started every game he has been fit for since he came back from his long term injury. I think he along with Heaslip were the only players to start every game at the world cup. Fitz started one game (v Canada) and covered the bench otherwise.

Ah I see I misunderstood your post, I readnit as saying that he wasn't at the WC, as in not physically present. My bad.

dub_skav

The definitive point for me - and it is highlighted in the pic above - is that Murphy also attempted to block the kick.

Have a look at where he and Stander end up in the above picture and I don't think there can be any argument that Stander was blameless here.
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on.

MJohnston

dub_skav wrote: »

1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on.

Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the boards.ie rugby forum :pac:

irishbucsfan

MJohnston wrote: »

Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the boards.ie rugby forum :pac:

Dave Kearney would have dodged him

BrokenMan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Dave Kearney would have dodged him

Yeah well Zebo would have blocked the kick

dub_skav

MJohnston wrote: »

Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the boards.ie rugby forum :pac:

I should have finished that thought:
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on....to the burning question of which winger sits on the bench for 78 minutes.

sydthebeat

dub_skav wrote: »

I should have finished that thought:
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on....to the burning question of which winger sits on the bench for 78 minutes.

joe puts them on at 60, but theyre so slow they dont reach the field until the 78th minute

MJohnston

I think we'll have to see far earlier bench usage this week, altitude, leftover tiredness, etc.

former total

dub_skav wrote: »

I should have finished that thought:
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on....to the burning question of which winger sits on the bench for 78 minutes.

Has to be Gilroy?!

You can't just drop a guy who sat on the bench for one of Ireland's most famous wins, and bring in a guy who's never sat on an Ireland bench before.

I know people want to see more variety in our approach to bench-sitting, and there are still people out there who think Joe's approach to riding the pine is too conservative, but Gilroy has earned another shot at that tracksuit.

Healy is just too unproven at this level of benching. Big risk. We just don't know how good he is at looking happy for his team-mates while he watches from the sidelines.

thomond2006

If Ireland won the second test and the series I think it's reasonable to expect changes.

irishbucsfan

thomond2006 wrote: »

If Ireland won the second test and the series I think it's reasonable to expect changes.

I think there might be one or two, but not a huge amount.

phog

thomond2006 wrote: »

It was 2 weeks reduced to 1 after mitigation. There are entry levels for each kind of offence, so one week was not thought up out of thin air. The red card was upheld. Refs have been hung out to dry before, just ask Craig Joubert. Prominent, knowledgeable rugby people's opinions are as relevant as those on here when it comes to disciplinary sanctions. There has been a clear move to stamp out any unnecessary head impacts and CJ was just unlucky IMO.

I think there's been a lot of overreaction to this. It's a one week suspension, CJ isn't missing a RWC final and he'll be fresh for the third test.

If I remember correctly the Joubert incident had nothing to do with a citing so I've no idea why you're trying to use that as a precedent.

You might weight the opinions of posters here on par with Joe or Kaplan but I certainly wouldn't.

I hope your last point isn't aimed at me, posting a few replies should hardly be seen as overreaction.

molloyjh wrote: »

You aren't taking everything into account though. Plenty of "prominent, knowledgeable rugby people" have said it was the correct call. You seem to want to pick and choose what you consider to be evidence here. Everything that has happened is entirely consistent with what would have happened had the citing commissioner believed the red card was correct and entirely inconsistent with the citing commissioner believing it was incorrect. Refs have been hung out to dry on a number of occasions this season as well so there isn't even a case to be made for there being much in the way of precedence for covering up for refs.

If the opinion of a small handful of people who are in no way involved in the citing process is enough to make your conclusion on the citing process "obvious" then there can only be some serious mental gymnastics at play here.

No, the red card took over from the citing commissioner, a red card is an automatic citing.

While it suits your argument to try and devalue the opinion of people like Kaplan & Schmidt in this I think you're being disingenuous to their knowledge of the disciplinary hearing.

If the argument is correct that the disciplinary hearing used the entry level for this type of offence what would a player that received a YC have got - two weeks with one week suspended? So in effect by CJ getting a red card he misses out on close to two games. As I said it smacks of face saving for the ref