General Rugby Discussion II

thomond2006

MJohnston wrote: »

Of course, as demonstrated by this forum, there's plenty of people willing to overlook many things.

What exactly do you want?

Dubinusa

Found innocent in less time than you could skin yer ferret!! That's all there is to say.
Anyway, I wish them the best.

jacothelad

MJohnston wrote: »

Of course, as demonstrated by this forum, there's plenty of people willing to overlook many things.

There are indeed. Including the verdict of a jury following a long trial where they actually heard the evidence over the preconceived and pre-trial guilty verdict of a bunch of amateur lawyers who apparently know more that the actual legal profession. Perhaps the country should bin jury trials and just employ these psychics to pronounce the verdict without the need for evidence.

BBDBB

MJohnston

jacothelad wrote: »

There are indeed. Including the verdict of a jury following a long trial where they actually heard the evidence over the preconceived and pre-trial guilty verdict of a bunch of amateur lawyers who apparently know more that the actual legal profession. Perhaps the country should bin jury trials and just employ these psychics to pronounce the verdict without the need for evidence.

You keep saying this like it's something everyone involved hasn't heard a hundred times. There are plenty of facts out there for you to read about trials of that nature that provide multiple counterpoints.

Squidgy Black

Is this really still being posted about here.

Both sides need to fúcking drop it. Honestly it's just a pain in the hole listening to the back and forth on it.

The lads were acquitted. You might not like them, or think they're disgusting people, but that has sweet fück all to do with rugby.

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/TelegraphRugby/status/1006414544174870528?s=19

irishbucsfan

They let go some pretty talented coaches last week, there was uproar about it. Hope the IRFU are keeping their eyes peeled.

Clegg

RoG has signed a contract extension with Crusaders that keep him there until the end of the 2019 season.

Burkie1203

Jonny Gibbes is La Rochelle coach on 4 year deal

Burkie1203

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Jonny Gibbes is La Rochelle coach on 4 year deal

Has burnt a LOT of bridges there is say.

mfceiling

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Jonny Gibbes is La Rochelle coach on 4 year deal

Wrong. Sure didn't he leave Ulster citing family/personal reasons to go back home.

No wait...

irishbucsfan

I mean, he is going home still.

Whatever his family reasons, they could easily have time to sort them out by the time he moves to La Rochelle.

Yeah_Right

Maybe his family/personal reasons for leaving were that staying at Ulster was going to damage his mental health and/or career.

connemara man

Well Ulster definitely couldn't guarantee him that long a contract (especially given the amount of coaches they've gone through in recent years) and stability could be what he needs.

Bazzo

https://twitter.com/pauleddison/status/1007202976979615744?s=19

Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before now? Could tie in with the rumours of Ashton looking for a release to try to further his England career, though I think he's mostly been playing 15 at Toulon.

Clegg

And Doug Howlett survives another challenger

thomond2006

Bazzo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/pauleddison/status/1007202976979615744?s=19

Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before now? Could tie in with the rumours of Ashton looking for a release to try to further his England career, though I think he's mostly been playing 15 at Toulon.

Toulon came out with a statement calling bull**** on the Ashton rumours.

CatFromHue

Savea would be a player I'd a question mark over if he were to move to France.

Some ABs do great outside NZ and then others just fall off a cliff.

swiwi_

CatFromHue wrote: »

Savea would be a player I'd a question mark over if he were to move to France.

Some ABs do great outside NZ and then others just fall off a cliff.

A win-win for Savea and NZ rugby: struggling to make a Hurricanes 1st XV these days, this will free up a wedge of cash.

Yeah_Right

I honestly thought Savea was going to be the player to break Howlett's record. Good luck to him in Toulon.

MaybeMaybe

What went wrong for him?

MaybeMaybe

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

What went wrong for him?

It started off with him coming back for pre season incredibly out of shape and hitting the start of the season off his fitness markers. That's what saw him drop out of the All Blacks squad a few years ago. Seemed to come back into contention but not sure what's happened if anything more recently.

I can't say I've followed it closely but that's what I recall from a few years back.

Bazzo

Has anybody seen the42s latest "ref review" series for rugby matches written by Kinsella (or at least the one I saw for the Australian match was) where they review select penalties in minute detail? What an absolutely tragic idea for a series of pieces, no doubt it'll feed into the ref blaming mentality that's popular among some of the more sore losers...

Buer

Bazzo wrote: »

Has anybody seen the42s latest "ref review" series for rugby matches written by Kinsella (or at least the one I saw for the Australian match was) where they review select penalties in minute detail? What an absolutely tragic idea for a series of pieces, no doubt it'll feed into the ref blaming mentality that's popular among some of the more sore losers...

I think it's an interesting approach. Loads of people don't have a clue what happens and this breaks down those decisions. They agree with some, disagree with others and this piece isn't going to change that for many, I believe.

It agrees with some calls against Ireland also. For example, it says they were right to disallow Stander's effort and penalise Murray's behaviour. It also highlights Cronin being fortunate not to be penalised for sealing off.

I understand that it's unfair to an extent to analyse a referee performance in minute detail but it's a massive test match where people are going to analyse it anyway. There's clearly an appetite for such a piece.

Squidgy Black

Bazzo wrote: »

Has anybody seen the42s latest "ref review" series for rugby matches written by Kinsella (or at least the one I saw for the Australian match was) where they review select penalties in minute detail? What an absolutely tragic idea for a series of pieces, no doubt it'll feed into the ref blaming mentality that's popular among some of the more sore losers...

I don't think it will. To be honest, if anything it'll show a more in-depth breakdown into correct decisions made by refs that your average punter will cry about and say that say that the ref is 'riding' their team. Obviously there will be incorrect decisions or borderline calls that will be up to interpretation of the ref, but generally they'll be whinging over them anyways.

Bazzo

Well for one thing the "ref review" is blatantly wrong on at least one occasion where he says a player from either team must be contesting over the ball to form a ruck.

But yes, there is a huge appetite for this, because there's an unfortunately large amount of people desperate to blame a ref for every single loss of their team. I doubt people will use it to inform themselves more(even with some of the incorrect information I pointed out above) rather than picking through it for some confirmation bias.

Bridge93

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I don't think it will. To be honest, if anything it'll show a more in-depth breakdown into correct decisions made by refs that your average punter will cry about and say that say that the ref is 'riding' their team. Obviously there will be incorrect decisions or borderline calls that will be up to interpretation of the ref, but generally they'll be whinging over them anyways.

The comments on the article are full of how the ref cost Ireland points and gave Australia 10. The article also ignored the one in the first half which should've been a 5m penalty against Murray and briefly looked at the penalty against Pocock first half as a collective breakdown section.
If you're going to do these articles you need to be at least balanced or look at every little incident which is unrealistic

People quietly move past the bits that prove them wrong and the ref right and go straight to where they can be outraged and right

irishbucsfan

Bazzo wrote: »

Well for one thing the "ref review" is blatantly wrong on at least one occasion where he says a player from either team must be contesting over the ball to form a ruck.

Maybe I'm too hungover but this sounds right to me

Sangre

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Maybe I'm too hungover but this sounds right to me

I think the point Bazzo is making is that the ref in the article says the ruck needs players from BOTH teams, which is no longer the law.