"Gosper gives in to Twitter" - yams Kiwi cakehole

[Gagger]

If you boil it all down he's just saying Gosper shouldn't be on Twitter.

Opinion: Twitter hacks into All Blacks plans​

Opinion By Jim Kayes​

The name Brett Gosper won't trip off too many of the All Blacks' tongues and had most of the New Zealand media pack covering the team's northern tour scratching our heads here in Rome.​

He is, we now know, the new chief executive of the International Rugby Board, but though he's Australian, he's followed the path of the man he's replaced, Mike Miller, by ensconcing himself in Dublin and remaining virtually out of reach for those of use not residing in Britain or Europe.​

But we all know about him now because within hours of All Blacks flanker Adam Thomson being handed a one week ban for stomping in the Scotland test, Gosper had emerged from Dublin's shadows to tweet on Twitter that the case would be reviewed.​

Why? Because a couple of English hacks (well actually one is Welsh) and a former England test hooker had opined via Twitter that getting just one week for stomping was ridiculous.​

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Twitter-hacks-into-All-Blacks-plans/tabid/415/articleID/276868/Default.aspx#ixzz2CJtXaF9F​

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I think he is also saying that there appears to be inconsistencies in judicial findings. He once defends a specific judiciary from outsiders who are by claiming thand hearing at the outsiders should not call the sentence lenient, because they weren't present to hear all the evidence, and then implies later that there have been some other lenient sentences (particularly after attacks on Sir Richie GOAT).

The author claims You have no right to claim that the sentence on Thompson was light because you weren't party to all the evidence in the judicial room, however without being in the judicial room and hearing all the evidence I think that the findings against these players were lenient. Hmmm.

 

[Sully]

Let's not call it stomping. One of his tags lightly tapped his helmet. I wonder if he even new it had happened.

 

[Dan54]

Well from what I read, the player(I forget his name) was actually the one who said it was no stomp and sent letter to judiciary.

Though to bbe fair I still would of given him longer for being dumb!!

 

[qwerty51]

Forget the Thomson incident (should've been more) what about the Ellison incident... not even cited. That was disgraceful

 

[Scarfman]

If this is Gosper's first public pronouncement on the state of the game, it's pretty dismal. He should have more important things to do.

 

[Hawko]

If this is Gosper's first public pronouncement on the state of the game, it's pretty dismal. He should have more important things to do.

I guess its just my opinion, but I think that inconsistency, right across the board in judicial citing and hearings, is one of THE major issues confronting international rugby. The lack of a fair, open process that has clear guidelines on severity of sentence and when players should be cited has resulted in the judicial system becoming an absolute lottery. What's the right sentence range for a tip tackle? Why, anything from nothing at all, not even a hearing through to 22 weeks.

That inconsistency will encourage dirty play because players know that there is a chance they won't even be cited for a major incident. I'm no Gosper fan, but he's right on the money.

 

[kiap]

Forget the Thomson incident (should've been more) what about the Ellison incident. not even cited. That was disgraceful

This one? Nuthin in it.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

In terms of standardised guidance for Illegal and/or Foul Play and Misconduct, IRB Regulation 17 applies, and is used by nearly all judiciaries to assist to determine sanctions for citings.​

​

Obviously the Judicial Officials have to weigh up all the evidence presented, and consider any mitigating factors before passing sentence. Their findings are invariably published and "googleable".​

​

Judiciary Entry Point Based on Scale of Seriousness of the Player’s conduct, which constitutes the offending.​

​

Law No.6.A.5, 10.4(k) Verbal Abuse of Match Officials, ​

Lower End 6 weeks, Mid Range 12 weeks, Top End 18+weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No.6.A.5, 10.4(k) Physical Abuse of Match Officials​

Lower End 24 weeks, Mid Range 48 weeks, Top End 96+ weeks, Maximum Sanction Life​

​

Law No.6.A.5, 10.4(k) Threatening Actions or Words at Match Officials​

Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 24 weeks, Top End 48+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 260 weeks​

​

Law No.10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 8+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(a) Striking another Player with the elbow​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks,Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(a) Striking with knee​

Lower End 3 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 12+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(a) Striking with head​

Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 12+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 104 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(b) Stamping on an Opponent​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(b) Trampling on an Opponent​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(c) Kicking an Opponent​

Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 12+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(d) Tripping an Opponent with the foot/leg​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 4 weeks, Top End 7+weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including early or late and including the action known as the “stiff arm tackle”​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 6 weeks, Top End 10+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(f) Holding, pushing or obstructing an Opponent not holding the ball except in a scrum, ruck or maul​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 4 weeks, Top End 6+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(f) Dangerous charging or obstructing or grabbing of Opponent without the ball, including shouldering​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(g) Dangerous charging or obstructing or grabbing of Opponent with the ball, including shouldering​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 5 weeks, Top End 9+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(i) Causing a scrum, ruck or maul to collapse​

Lower End 2 weeks, Mid Range 4 weeks, Top End 8+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(k) Testicle grabbing or twisting or squeezing​

Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 18 weeks, Top End 24+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 208 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(k) Biting​

Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 18 weeks, Top End 24+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 208 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(k) Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area​

Lower End 12 weeks, Mid Range 18 weeks, Top End 24+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 156 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(k) Spitting at Players​

Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 7 weeks, Top End 11+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

​

Law No 10.4(k) Verbal abuse of Players based on Religion, Race, Colour, or National or Ethnic Origin or otherwise​

Lower End 4 weeks, Mid Range 8 weeks, Top End 13+ weeks, Maximum Sanction 52 weeks​

 

[Dan54]

Forget the Thomson incident (should've been more) what about the Ellison incident. not even cited. That was disgraceful

Gwerty ,you should stop reading PR forum

 

[cyclopath]

Gwerty ,you should stop reading PR forum

Nothing in it because the player didn't get hurt. Those type of wrestling holds and applying that force to someone's shoulder if they were pinned, and unable to move and take the pressure off, could easily cause significant damage. Not to mention the player was not really near the ball so why the hell do it?
That sort of stuff is not necessary, and arguably is designed mainly to cause injury than do anything else. It isn't a cleanout, it isn't a tackle. Pretty dubious value.
Wouldn't mind seeing refs tell players quietly to cut it out; not worthy of a ban necessarily though.

 

[daz]

I think we should really just get our heads around the fact that any tweet from any person should not be held up as a formal communication, or indeed have any relation to any duty or task being under-taken in parallel by the tweeter.

I think sending a tweet on a Sunday afternoon with a few whiskey's under your belt, while sitting in front of the fire/watching porn/trimming your nasal hairs/baking scones, should not be confused with a formal memo from your office during working hours.

Can we please just seperate the two and not get our knickers in a twist about the contents of the twitterverse? Thanks.

/end rant.

 

[cyclopath]

I think we should really just get our heads around the fact that any tweet from any person should not be held up as a formal communication, or indeed have any relation to any duty or task being under-taken in parallel by the tweeter.

I think sending a tweet on a Sunday afternoon with a few whiskey's under your belt, while sitting in front of the fire/watching porn/trimming your nasal hairs/baking scones, should not be confused with a formal memo from your office during working hours.

Can we please just seperate the two and not get our knickers in a twist about the contents of the twitterverse? Thanks.

/end rant.

Please never post a Twitpic of that. Promise me.

 

[daz]

Please never post a Twitpic of that. Promise me.

Yeah, no problem. Noooo problem. Umm, how do you recall a tweet?

 

[Richo]

Hawko, I completely agree.

It was interesting on the Podslam that the SANZAR boss pointed out that some of their problems with consistency result from IRB limitations on what SANZAR can and cannot do in judiciary process and structure. It would be really good to see the IRB reform the system.

 

[Braveheart81]

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

I agree and disagree with real frothy mouthed passion on whats going on here.

Agree - Thomson ban not long enough, and judicial systems needs an overhaul.

Disagree - IRB look at things on the back of pommy journo's tweeting the head of the IRB.

As for Tamati Ellison - well, it depends what hat your wearing when you look at it. He grabbed his arm whoopee OR because he's wearing black he's clearly a vindicitve fucker of ill repute and clearly trying to break his arm and thus should be banned for 32 weeks.

Dunno which one it is, and really... don't care.

 

[Sully]

MR he grabbed his arm and tried to tear it off!

 

[daz]

As for Tamati Ellison - well, it depends what hat your wearing when you look at it. He grabbed his arm whoopee OR because he's wearing black he's clearly a vindicitve fucker of ill repute and clearly trying to break his arm and thus should be banned for 32 weeks.

Well, for mine I'll vote for the latter part, every day and twice on Sunday's. Wearing black has nothing to do with it, but the rest of that sentence is correct.

Sorry MR. I think you might need to take a step back and look at this free from bias. It was fucking disgraceful behaviour and should have resulted in a whopping suspension.

I would say the same thing even if that was a Wallaby doing the damage. Surely we can agree that a thuggish action is a thuggish action, regardless of jersey colour?

 

[MrTimms]

Seeing that happen with Ellison, it's almost a carbon copy of the Beau Robinson incident from 2011 v. Crusaders.

Only difference is Jack's was heaps more subtle and effective...