Byrnes gets 10 Weeks
- Thread starter rugbyisfun
- Start date
- Status
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
V
Veritas
Guest
Now that the dust has settled, we should all deal with facts and not bullshit. If you actually read the judgement you will find:
1. Carter made a written statement saying it happened as he was getting up. Not what was shown on TV before they went to ground. That vidio is clearly inconclusive and an open hand cannot be an eye gouge.
2. The judgement says the video of the ground incident clears Byrnes of any allegation of eye gouging.
3. The original finding was of a headlock which was deemed reckless. The appeal found no headlock, because there was none.
4, The origibnal judgement found an admission by Byrnes. The appeal found no such admission.
5. reality is Carter had a couple of scratches near his eye. Made no complaint to Ref, a few metres away nor linesman nor Byrnes. Got up and scored a try.
However he got the scratches it did not happen when he said (on the ground). He exaggerated and tried to milk it. You can't do that with such a serious charge as eye gouging. Probably why Byrnes is so angry, because he was falsely accused. Carter needs to think before he opens his mouth in future. He doesn't need this shit. He had a good game.
1. Carter made a written statement saying it happened as he was getting up. Not what was shown on TV before they went to ground. That vidio is clearly inconclusive and an open hand cannot be an eye gouge.
2. The judgement says the video of the ground incident clears Byrnes of any allegation of eye gouging.
3. The original finding was of a headlock which was deemed reckless. The appeal found no headlock, because there was none.
4, The origibnal judgement found an admission by Byrnes. The appeal found no such admission.
5. reality is Carter had a couple of scratches near his eye. Made no complaint to Ref, a few metres away nor linesman nor Byrnes. Got up and scored a try.
However he got the scratches it did not happen when he said (on the ground). He exaggerated and tried to milk it. You can't do that with such a serious charge as eye gouging. Probably why Byrnes is so angry, because he was falsely accused. Carter needs to think before he opens his mouth in future. He doesn't need this shit. He had a good game.
V
Veritas
Guest
He did itbecause he dibn't think of the consequences. I agree he could have responded in a better way, but this has nothing to do with the fact that he was obviously falsely accused of eye gouging. On any view it was not a gouge. At worst it was with an open hand and happended in milli seconds. No deliberate placing of fingers in an eye.
Carter should never have proceeded with it. he did the wrong thing.
If Byrnes had deliberately put his fingers in Carters eye he deserves the 10 weeks.
Byrnes is angry because he knows he did not gouge Carter. If that wass not the case he would not have said anything.
Think about it.
Try and put prejudice aside.
Deal with facts.
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
Oh god not again.......
Brumbies Guy
John Solomon (38)
I hope not, it feels like it's been going on for 10 weeks already
Your facts, or other facts?
Oh, you mean your opinion?
You'll forgive us if some of us form our own, not yours tied with a bow and a card stating "Herein Lie Facts".
Torn Hammy
Johnnie Wallace (23)
According to Dr Luke Inman Carter's eyeball had been scratched. Serious stuff.
If you are going to ban someone for this you need to have proof. Should we be surprised that SANZAR's judiciary stuffed this concept up. No.
Byrnes, Carter and rugby supporters have been let down again by this very average bunch of officials. Replace them with the lunch ladies, I say.
If you are going to ban someone for this you need to have proof. Should we be surprised that SANZAR's judiciary stuffed this concept up. No.
Byrnes, Carter and rugby supporters have been let down again by this very average bunch of officials. Replace them with the lunch ladies, I say.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
The danger with this topic is that while all rugby players are equal, some rugby players are more equal than others.
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
I think in this case, both players are quite 'unequal' in the eyes of fans.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
I love it when a saga never dies
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...anction-over-carter-blast-20120404-1wd7e.html
Byrnes faces sanction over Carter blast
April 5, 2012
SUPER RUGBY'S governing body is considering sanctioning Rebels lock Adam Byrnes over comments he made in the media attacking Waratahs centre Tom Carter last month.
Byrnes accused Carter of trying to ruin his livelihood by levelling an eye gouging allegation against him during the Waratahs' round two win over the Rebels in Melbourne. He told a media outlet Carter's actions were a ''disgrace'' and displayed ''a very poor quality as a human being''. It is understood Byrnes's comments could have contravened SANZAR's code of conduct, which prevents players from criticising match officials and team members.
SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters yesterday confirmed Byrnes's ''printed comments [are] under consideration''. The 30-year-old made the comments the day after a three-person appeals committee overturned an initial 10-week playing ban handed down by the SANZAR judiciary in the wake of the game.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...anction-over-carter-blast-20120404-1wd7e.html
Byrnes faces sanction over Carter blast
April 5, 2012
SUPER RUGBY'S governing body is considering sanctioning Rebels lock Adam Byrnes over comments he made in the media attacking Waratahs centre Tom Carter last month.
Byrnes accused Carter of trying to ruin his livelihood by levelling an eye gouging allegation against him during the Waratahs' round two win over the Rebels in Melbourne. He told a media outlet Carter's actions were a ''disgrace'' and displayed ''a very poor quality as a human being''. It is understood Byrnes's comments could have contravened SANZAR's code of conduct, which prevents players from criticising match officials and team members.
SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters yesterday confirmed Byrnes's ''printed comments [are] under consideration''. The 30-year-old made the comments the day after a three-person appeals committee overturned an initial 10-week playing ban handed down by the SANZAR judiciary in the wake of the game.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
This certainly has a group of characters in it. And that is not considering TC and Byrnes.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
Penalty would be time already served.
More likely to be a fine if found guilty, I'd have thought?
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
Would they halve it because he doesn't have a history of lashing out in print at someone he feels falsely accused him of eye gouging?
- Status