"Gosper gives in to Twitter" - yams Kiwi cakehole
- Thread starter Gagger
- Start date
- Status
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
Gotcha. Your a top bloke, Scarfman.
I'm betting the lowest form of one.
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Puns?
M
Muttonbird
Guest
I think media pressure, from Brian Moore no less, seems to have got to Gosper on this. Dangerous precedent he has set here undermining the IRBs citing process. If this one can be reviewed the all of them should be, surely?
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
What's so bad about them being reviewed, it certainly warrants it in this case. You're making out as if Gosper is influencing the actual decision.
M
Muttonbird
Guest
Yes, I am. I heard on the radio this morning the IRB statement on this included words to the effect they would like to see a heavier penalty.
M
Muttonbird
Guest
Not necessarily Scarfy. I didn't have a problem with Paddy O'Brien's qualifications as the IRB's ref man but I didn't like the way he performed with the media either.
Literally, better camera work and youtube has meant he and Brett Gosper have fallen victim to fans and media seeing everything in HD. The IRB needs to decide on a communication strategy and stick to it and not tweet about it, or in Paddy's case, apologise.
M
Muttonbird
Guest
Agreed.
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
All panned out as expected so far. The thing is though, if you look at the legal battle here, Thomsons case is actually quite good.
IRB has set out that for stomping/trampling to the head, a range of penalties from 2-9 weeks. Does anybody disagree that this was clearly at the low end of this? I certainly don't & the Scottish guys voluntary message supporting Thomson agrees as well. So 2 week suspension. Now it also states in the IRB regulations that suspensions can be reduced for good behaviour/clean record - Thomson has a clean record, thus reduced by 1. Hence from a legal side of it, reading the IRB suggested sanctions - the sentence is right.
The problem really is in the IRB sanction - it shouldnt' start at 2 weeks. Feet on the head should start at 4. Would this outcry still be there if this was 4 weeks reduced to 3? No, it' wouldn't.
So whats going to happen here? I really don't know. Sanity suggests it should have been 4 weeks ish - something I & the most one-eyed AB fan I know (my Dad) both agree on. But legally... IRB doesn' seem to have anything to stand on (boom, tish).
In the long term Gosper & Co have chosen to open up this can of worms which is not a bad thing for the game as a whole. Naturally it pisses me off that it's this case they have used (especially given the constant attacks with insufficient punishment on Richies head over the last 2 years), but it had to start somewhere & from reading Gospers tweets it does sound like this is the first opportunity under his reign (IRB sanctioned games etc) so fair enough.
It does of course irk me the perception that British media twitter campaign would appear to be behind this (not to mention every kids coach demanding how they can explain this to their kids at training (side note, no wonder the poms skill leve at rugby is shit, if they spend their time at trainings going over judicial hearing at the IRB.. but I digress (c) Grant, Lee))), but in the cold light of day this was probably going to happen anyway.
The can is open the worms are everywhere. If it brings consistency, then I'm all for it.
IRB has set out that for stomping/trampling to the head, a range of penalties from 2-9 weeks. Does anybody disagree that this was clearly at the low end of this? I certainly don't & the Scottish guys voluntary message supporting Thomson agrees as well. So 2 week suspension. Now it also states in the IRB regulations that suspensions can be reduced for good behaviour/clean record - Thomson has a clean record, thus reduced by 1. Hence from a legal side of it, reading the IRB suggested sanctions - the sentence is right.
The problem really is in the IRB sanction - it shouldnt' start at 2 weeks. Feet on the head should start at 4. Would this outcry still be there if this was 4 weeks reduced to 3? No, it' wouldn't.
So whats going to happen here? I really don't know. Sanity suggests it should have been 4 weeks ish - something I & the most one-eyed AB fan I know (my Dad) both agree on. But legally... IRB doesn' seem to have anything to stand on (boom, tish).
In the long term Gosper & Co have chosen to open up this can of worms which is not a bad thing for the game as a whole. Naturally it pisses me off that it's this case they have used (especially given the constant attacks with insufficient punishment on Richies head over the last 2 years), but it had to start somewhere & from reading Gospers tweets it does sound like this is the first opportunity under his reign (IRB sanctioned games etc) so fair enough.
It does of course irk me the perception that British media twitter campaign would appear to be behind this (not to mention every kids coach demanding how they can explain this to their kids at training (side note, no wonder the poms skill leve at rugby is shit, if they spend their time at trainings going over judicial hearing at the IRB.. but I digress (c) Grant, Lee))), but in the cold light of day this was probably going to happen anyway.
The can is open the worms are everywhere. If it brings consistency, then I'm all for it.
- Status