Matt Giteau avoids suspension, fined $5k

[Tiger]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

I originally thought there was only a slim chance that Giteau would be suspended and that a fine would be more likely. Now that Walsh has been removed from the game though, I wonder whether that still holds true.

It would seem to me that a strong message would need to be sent that teams can't get a referee removed by complaining to the media and a fine may not be sufficient for that purpose. Instead, it may be more balanced to say "right, we're removing Walsh because of all this crap, but we're also removing your bloke for starting it in the media".

On the other hand, suspending Giteau for a match could simply escalate the matter more and keep it in the media longer than it needs to be. The preferred approach may be to simply deprive the story of oxygen and let it die out in a day or so.

Either way, it's going to be interesting to see what, if anything, happens from here.

 

[Biffo]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

Jesus you guys are harsh on Giteau (as a player).

What he said to the media is bullshit though. The "shoudn't bother turning up" comment is completely out of line and it's correct for him to be hauled over the coals for this.

Looks like you can't teach an old dog new tricks is true for Walsh. His failing have always been the same and it looks like they are still there. He should be a rock against any manipulating/moaning captain, not let his views get in the way.

My Dear Major

You may recall that we disagreed about the vehemence and acuracy of attacks on referees on this board and on another esteemed forum some way to the east of Sydney and a long way west of San Francisco.

My opinion was clearly wrong and I offer you my most sincere apologies.

Yours

Biffo

 

[Biffo]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

The captains have every right to discuss rulings with refs

Could you please explain this "right" to us? AFAIK, it doesn't appear in the Laws. Is it somewhere in Regulations or Protocols?

 

[Scarfman]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

^ pedant patrol, please lock him up.


I agree with Tiger - Walsh and Gits should both go for a week.

 

[Spook]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

^ pedant patrol, please lock him up.


I agree with Tiger - Walsh and Gits should both go for a week.

I agree with both these motions (pedant and Gits).

 

[Gagger]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

Brumby Jack is live at the hearing - you'll hear the result on the blog first.

Apparently it's a phone hookup from canberra to Sydney and started 20 minutes late at 6.50pm

 

[chief]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

I think they'll set a precedent here. You can't talk about refs like that and question their credibility. I think a suspension or a $10k + fine is on the cards. If Eddie got $10k, surely Gits will receive more as Jones labeled the refs performance, and not his credibility.

 

[Gagger]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

BREAKING NEWS: GITS GETS $5000 FINE ONLY

 

[cyclopath]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

Pathetic, but not unexpected.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

So, not even a weeks wages or 10 mins of endorsement work.

Agree with Cyclopath.

 

[Godfrey]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

blah blah blah, awful Giteau has done it again. What an ego/haircut/worst person in history etc etc.

 

[cyclopath]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

blah blah blah, awful Giteau has done it again. What an ego/haircut/worst person in history etc etc.

So I presume you endorse players being able to rubbish the refs after games to the point of suggesting bias with barely a slap on the wrist? Just curious.

 

[chief]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

News just in, pay $5000 to knock off a ref for the week. Tah fans, now you know the secret to rid you of Kaplan.

 

[Godfrey]

Re: Matt Giteau facing suspension

blah blah blah, awful Giteau has done it again. What an ego/haircut/worst person in history etc etc.

So I presume you endorse players being able to rubbish the refs after games to the point of suggesting bias with barely a slap on the wrist? Just curious.

I don't see $5000 as a slap on the wrist for what was seemingly an un-thinking response to a baited question. I think it's a good idea for Coaches to be fined more heavily than players for this sort of thing and the precedent has been set at 10k for coaches. As for a suspension, I personally wouldn't have found it too outrageous either way. I'm just predicting people to blame the amount of the fine on Giteau himself as he seems to be the most inevitably bagged person in Australian rugby.

 

[Moses]

It's a first offense, I reckon suspension would be too harsh. Perhaps 5k is not a bad amount, are their any precedents for dissent fines in rugby?

 

[Spook]

Seems like these things are always handled with fines? Fortunately it doesn't happen to much.

Good work BJ & G&GR.

 

[mark_s]

I am ok with a $5k fine, a suspension would have been harsh. A fine plus a suspended sentence would have been fair but suspended sentences down't work well in rugby

 

[Reddy!]

If anything, the Brumbies will be patting Matt on the back and probably will shout him the fine; his comment went a little way to getting rid of Walsh for the weekend.

 

[DPK]

Dud decision: Giteau $5000 the poorer for telling it like it is
GREG GROWDEN
April 29, 2010

Comments 34
* Vote

COMMENT

SANZAR got it right in deciding that Steve Walsh shouldn't referee Saturday night's Brumbies-Reds match but were wrong in forcing Matt Giteau to front its judiciary committee last night on a code of conduct charge.

Giteau was fined $5000 for making comments to a journalist about Walsh's dreadful refereeing last weekend - comments many thought were perfectly justified, considering the despair the Brumbies felt after several of his decisions spoiled their chances of winning in Sydney.

Giteau was asked legitimate questions by a reporter on Monday, and he gave honest answers.

The conversation went:

Reporter: How are you guys going to be if Steve Walsh is refereeing on Saturday night?

Giteau: Mate, I don't know if we'll turn up. What's the point?

Reporter: So you're hoping he gets relegated then?

Giteau: Yeah, I think so. I think everyone is.

Earlier he was asked what he thought of Adam Ashley-Cooper's try being disallowed. ''Like anyone that knows rugby, it was a try,'' Giteau replied.

If SANZAR prefers censorship, fine. But if that is the case, it then has no alternative but to closely scrutinise comments yesterday by its referees' boss, Lyndon Bray, and hit him with a code of conduct charge as well.

Bray went on New Zealand radio to justify why Walsh was pulled from the Brumbies-Reds match and replaced by Chris Pollock, and the subject soon turned to Giteau's comments. At the time of this radio interview, it was widely known that Giteau was expected to face a SANZAR judiciary hearing.

Bray said he thought Giteau ''definitely needs to face a disciplinary hearing on the comments''. He added that Giteau had to be held ''accountable'', and that it would be ''nice'' if Giteau was suspended at least for the Reds match.

Nice!!! These are not ''nice'' or particularly smart comments before a SANZAR judicial hearing. They come across as a high-ranking official putting pressure on others within the organisation to make sure Giteau is penalised. For that, Bray must be pulled into line, especially as he also said that, in his opinion, the ''hammer'' had to be brought down on Giteau taking an emotional approach when criticising Walsh.

As perplexing was the reasoning behind Walsh no longer being the referee at Canberra Stadium. According to Bray, Walsh's demotion had more to do with concerns the game would turn into a circus if he was the referee, rather than a penalty for the numerous diabolical decisions he made last weekend, or the running battle he had all night with Brumbies captain Stephen Hoiles.

''We have to look at the best interests of the game this weekend, as well as what's in the best interests of Steve as a referee,'' Bray said. ''It is very unfortunate the Brumbies have come out very publicly with those particular comments. They have made it very untenable for Steve to be able to work in that environment.''

So it was all the Brumbies fault. Who's kidding who?

Bray then defended Walsh for disallowing Ashley-Cooper's try for a ''double moment''.

If Bray seriously thinks Ashley-Cooper's try wasn't a try, it just proves why so many referees have got it wrong in the past, because such try attempts, which aren't exactly uncommon, have regularly resulted in five points being awarded.

At least all this brouhaha has momentarily succeeded in diverting everyone's attention to the real problem at the Brumbies - internal division form there being too many chiefs and not enough indians. Who knows - the Walsh debacle may see them band together again.

What a dickhead...

 

[TheRiddler]

What a dickhead...

You talking about Growden or Bray?