W
Waylon
Guest
never got over the Giteau thing did you. Would you like a tissue?
Byrnes gets 10 Weeks
- Thread starter rugbyisfun
- Start date
- Status
never got over the Giteau thing did you. Would you like a tissue?
Tangawizi
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Fox Sports has some footage here but it's very difficult to make out a gouge - or otherwise, because someone runs in front of the camera at the crucial moment. Hope they had more footage to go on than this.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...-to-nsw-waratahs/story-e6frf4qu-1226288698763
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...-to-nsw-waratahs/story-e6frf4qu-1226288698763
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
The what thing?
I'm simply referring to the well documented off the ball stuff the Force have been up to in the last 2 local derbies.
Charles was nearly binned in the first game, and they kept up with it against the Reds.
I suggested in the match thread that they need to do away with that rubbish and focus on playing rugby...
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Many deserve special treatment but to hand out penalties unsuported by evidence of an offence is not something we want to contemplate lest players like Gregan get wiped from the game for being mouthy and unpopular with Officialdom on the paddock. As for being a serial pest, so many here harped on about that sort of quality being a missing ingredient from the Wallabies and that same pestilential is applauded by many Tahs fans in Carter himself, who tends to niggle and leave while Byrnes niggles and fights.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
Was hard to tell what happened, in the heat of the moment, someon poking you in an eye is always going to get a response, thought the white card on the field was th right call.
Obviously there is footage or reason to believe he wass at least rekless if nit had intent to go for the face as a result I don mind the suspension as long as there consistent with it.
Obviously there is footage or reason to believe he wass at least rekless if nit had intent to go for the face as a result I don mind the suspension as long as there consistent with it.
W
Waylon
Guest
Watch the tape
The bloke can't help niggling off the ball. Every time he's on film he's niggling someone
There's a difference between hitting people hard with legitimate tackles, cleaning out legitimately and running the ball hard..........and kicking people on the ground, wiping your boots in their face, pushing their heads in the ground and raking their eyes etc etc
It takes a lot of discipline not to punch him.
The bloke can't help niggling off the ball. Every time he's on film he's niggling someone
There's a difference between hitting people hard with legitimate tackles, cleaning out legitimately and running the ball hard..........and kicking people on the ground, wiping your boots in their face, pushing their heads in the ground and raking their eyes etc etc
It takes a lot of discipline not to punch him.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
If an eye gouge didn't occur, then some of the evidence must be dodgy. Byrnes and the Rebels should call the Tahs out on it.
But if an eye gouge did occur, the ban seems reasonable. The IRB want to get this stuff out of the game.
But if an eye gouge did occur, the ban seems reasonable. The IRB want to get this stuff out of the game.
Seriously, if a player thinks they have been gouged, they ought to report it. The ref gave the white card, specifically the situation for which it is intended.
The citing commissioner took action, based on evidence to which we do not have access.
Tom Carter did not cite him.
The Tahs did not cite him.
Some of the shit on here bordering on trivialising raking / gouging / attacking the eyes because nothing bad really happened is beyond belief.
As Sully said, keep on track, and any provincial based rubbish will be short-lived.
The citing commissioner took action, based on evidence to which we do not have access.
Tom Carter did not cite him.
The Tahs did not cite him.
Some of the shit on here bordering on trivialising raking / gouging / attacking the eyes because nothing bad really happened is beyond belief.
As Sully said, keep on track, and any provincial based rubbish will be short-lived.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Nobody should post "I haven't seen the footage, but......" The citing commissioner and the judiciary have seen the footage, whatever it is like, and have formed a conclusion. It is legitimate to argue "I have seen all the footage and I disagree with the outcome of the citing because....." But to say "I haven't seen the incident but I suspect they are covering their arses", which is the thrust of the post, is just libellous and mean-spirited.
Last year I argued that several decisions by the judiciary were inconsistent and unnecessarily lenient. In my opinion the citing process was terribly unjust and risked someone being seriously injured by failing to clamp down where it was appropriate. But I did so after viewing the games in question at the time and in replay.
This is G&GR, not some forum where people can post whatever abuse they feel like just because they are on a keyboard.
End of rant.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
From what I read the commissioner based the written testimony of TC and the Tahs doc.
So I'm not sure they saw more footage than anyone else.
So I'm not sure they saw more footage than anyone else.
The hearing went for 4 and a half hours.
Clearly there was a lot more to it than the single inconclusive replay that the speculation in this thread is based on.
Clearly there was a lot more to it than the single inconclusive replay that the speculation in this thread is based on.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
I got the same impression. All the footage I've seen, including the myriad of replays that they showed on the replay of the game, was inconclusive.
I am guessing that the footage seen by the commissioner was inconclusive, too, as they said (bolding mine):
The Rebels are appealing that it was accidental, and the footage definitely supports that it was (unlike my avatar!). However, I don't think it matters, really, as intent doesn't need to be proven. If you drag your hand across someone's eyes, like Byrnes did, you are asking for trouble.
twenty seven
Tom Lawton (22)
Four and a half hours is a long time so maybe not that clear cut.
Especially when you see the evidence from the time Eales was eye gouged by the French player in a World Cup game.
Whats done is done. Would like to see a lot of 'off the ball' crap in the last two rounds stopped. Play rugby and get on with the game. If your good enough, and your team is good enough, you will get the points.
Especially when you see the evidence from the time Eales was eye gouged by the French player in a World Cup game.
Whats done is done. Would like to see a lot of 'off the ball' crap in the last two rounds stopped. Play rugby and get on with the game. If your good enough, and your team is good enough, you will get the points.
I'm not condoning Byrnes at all, but it is interesting to note that Schalk Burger did far, far worse by wailing on David Pocock's face and eye area not once, not twice but 7 times in a game a couple of months ago and was not even cited...... go figure. And Burger is a guy with big form with this type of thing.
There seems to be no consistency.
There seems to be no consistency.
Shiggins
Simon Poidevin (60)
I wonder what Harris will get for the eye gouge in the reds force game.
Http://www.youtube.com/shiggins316
Http://www.youtube.com/shiggins316
meatsack
Ward Prentice (10)
Surely if there was more evidence (hence a clearer cut case) it woud've been a shorter hearing usually? Unless some extra evidence was introduced late, it seemed like many of the judges needed convincing. I'm not saying they were wrong in the decision, but saying a long hearing means there was more evidence is not 100% true.
- Status