The Rugby Thread
Comments
-
The BBC have just released a mostly pro-Farrell piece, then opened it up to the HYS lot.ddraver said:The comments 😂🤣
Get the popcorn out, it’s going to be far more entertaining than the game….
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Most of the replies seem to be taking issue with its assertion that the decision has split opinion.0
-
Apparently World Rugby have appealed the decision.0
-
0
-
Hmmm, single source "hearing reports". I'm not sure.shirley_basso said:Apparently World Rugby have appealed the decision.
World Rugby appealing the decision made by World Rugby would be next level weird...so probably yeahWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Hmmm, single source "hearing reports". I'm not sure.
Just heard it confirmed. There will be a new panel made up of:
Andy Farrell
Colleen Farrell
Steve Borthwick
Eddie Jones
They are hoping for a robust, open and transparent process...2 -
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
-
The decision to overturn the red wasn't made by World Rugby, it was made a a panel appointed by 6 Nations rugby.ddraver said:
Hmmm, single source "hearing reports". I'm not sure.shirley_basso said:Apparently World Rugby have appealed the decision.
World Rugby appealing the decision made by World Rugby would be next level weird...so probably yeah
0 -
It’s all academic anyway as England could play their second string and still top the group stage.
Would be nice to see him brought down a peg or two though.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Always seems crazy to me when these disciplinary hearings involve barristers. It should just be up to a governing body to be able to decide based on the facts before them and whether they contravene the laws of the game. Why does it need to be so complicated?0
-
£££ usuallyPross said:Always seems crazy to me when these disciplinary hearings involve barristers. It should just be up to a governing body to be able to decide based on the facts before them and whether they contravene the laws of the game. Why does it need to be so complicated?
0 -
I assume it derives from the fact that nothing and no-one are above the law (*). Ideally, this is to protect the "little people" from being stitched up by a person or organisation (ab)using its power, whereas in the modern sports world, the traditional "little people" i.e. the players, now have more power than the Powers That Be if bankrolled to hire the best lawyers.Pross said:Always seems crazy to me when these disciplinary hearings involve barristers. It should just be up to a governing body to be able to decide based on the facts before them and whether they contravene the laws of the game. Why does it need to be so complicated?
(*) MPs are above certain laws but are answerable to Parliament.
0 -
The rugby club I support took the WRU to the High Court about 10 years ago to challenge them on changing the promotion and relegation rules part of the way through the season. The judge agreed that they'd behaved unreasonably but ruled that as the governing body they have the right to make up whatever rules they want leaving the club with a six figure bill and facing bankruptcy so I'm not sure it really helps.wallace_and_gromit said:
I assume it derives from the fact that nothing and no-one are above the law (*). Ideally, this is to protect the "little people" from being stitched up by a person or organisation (ab)using its power, whereas in the modern sports world, the traditional "little people" i.e. the players, now have more power than the Powers That Be if bankrolled to hire the best lawyers.Pross said:Always seems crazy to me when these disciplinary hearings involve barristers. It should just be up to a governing body to be able to decide based on the facts before them and whether they contravene the laws of the game. Why does it need to be so complicated?
(*) MPs are above certain laws but are answerable to Parliament.0 -
Well it won't every time. You need to have a valid case and a clearly valid case at that. Having interacted with governing body rules myself, the deck is always stacked in the governing body's favour, so I do wonder whether your club was wise to take such action. In my case, I considered legal action against British Swimming, but research highlighted that a specific law needs to have been broken or a specific provision in the rule book to be breached for any chance of success. Something like "Any matter not explicitly covered by these provisions shall be determined entirely at the discretion of XYZ Governing Body" covers a multitude of sins.Pross said:
The rugby club I support took the WRU to the High Court about 10 years ago to challenge them on changing the promotion and relegation rules part of the way through the season. The judge agreed that they'd behaved unreasonably but ruled that as the governing body they have the right to make up whatever rules they want leaving the club with a six figure bill and facing bankruptcy so I'm not sure it really helps.wallace_and_gromit said:
I assume it derives from the fact that nothing and no-one are above the law (*). Ideally, this is to protect the "little people" from being stitched up by a person or organisation (ab)using its power, whereas in the modern sports world, the traditional "little people" i.e. the players, now have more power than the Powers That Be if bankrolled to hire the best lawyers.Pross said:Always seems crazy to me when these disciplinary hearings involve barristers. It should just be up to a governing body to be able to decide based on the facts before them and whether they contravene the laws of the game. Why does it need to be so complicated?
(*) MPs are above certain laws but are answerable to Parliament.
And governing bodies may, in general, struggle to run anything more complicated than a bath, but they have a remarkable ability to have a tightly worded rulebook that favours them.0 -
Wales Leftovers were more awful.ddraver said:This is the first (second) half of rugby I've been able to watch from this series (?) and by Christ England are awful...
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.1 -
Nice for Earls and ultimately meaningless, but the pass for that last try looked awfully forward.0
-
England rubbish.
Billy V as dumb as Farrell.
Referee totslly inconsistent at the breakdown, hopefully not going to the WC.
Borthwick looking highly likely to be seeking new employment by Christmas.
Will England even make it out of their group? Samoa and Argentina must be licking their lips....0 -
As far as damning statements go, that's pretty much up there.Dorset_Boy said:
...
Will England even make it out of their group? Samoa and Argentina must be licking their lips....The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Farrell’s non- banning overturned.
Gets a well earned 6 week holiday."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Does that go from the original date? It would quite funny if he’s pushed his non-availability further through the process.blazing_saddles said:Farrell’s non- banning overturned.
Gets a well earned 6 week holiday.
0 -
Shame the Aussie panel didn't get the right decision in the first place.0
-
Now, what will Billy V get?0
-
Imagine 3 or the World's current top 5 being in the one group.
We all know which one is likely to go but that means someone topping a group will get it tough.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Having resigned myself to the fact England have no chance, I am hoping Ireland can live up to their number 1 status and win. I have a feeling they have the belief and mentality to get themselves over the line, which has always been the weak spot of most Northerm hemisphere teams.0
-
3 weeks for Billy Vunipola, or reduced to 2 weeks if he goes to tackle school.0
-
Hardly worth the bother to put on a sanction meeting.Dorset_Boy said:3 weeks for Billy Vunipola, or reduced to 2 weeks if he goes to tackle school.
Is it my imagination or are bans getting shorter as the rules get tighter?
Another example that will get the Tongans hot under the collar.
Their guy had a spotless record, committed a tip tackle with the guy landing on his back. He was handed a 10 week layoff.
They complained it was the difference between tier 1 players and tier 2."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
