HogansHeros
Jim Clark (26)
To be fair, I dont think anyone is writing up statistics on cards for Islander players vs Non Islander players. It can only ever be anecdotal evidence.
Rugby World Cup 2023
- Thread starter Braveheart81
- Start date
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Yes I have.
You just choose to ignore it. Which is both your prerogative and, completely unsurprising.
Tomthumb
Chilla Wilson (44)
Please cite 1 specific case where the judiciary has made a racially motivated decision
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
No. You don’t get to just define the narrow terms and the ways in which prejudice can solely be defined.
Quite the colonialist way of thinking there…lol
edit: oh the irony of responding to this post with the ‘I see nothing’ emoji
Last edited:
Tomthumb
Chilla Wilson (44)
Huh? You created these “narrow terms” by specifically calling the judiciary racist
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Can you quote where I said the judiciary is racist? I’ll quote myself
“The Pacific Island teams have often been penalised, carded and suspended….”
So again - no. YOU were the one decided to narrow it down to just the judiciary. I also never called them racist. I have no doubts there are prejudices and biases in rugby.
To me, it’s sillier to think that there aren’t. Prejudice and bias are a part of the reality we live in. So until rugby is somehow seperate to reality…
Last edited:
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Okay why would you schedule the Aus v Wales game for 9pm Sunday local time which is 5am for us? Why not just have it at midday when everyone can watch it?
None of the games are at a time I can fucked watching em. I take this personally. It's like they don't want me, the most important person in the world, watching their stupid corrupt tournament for high achieving private school lads.
None of the games are at a time I can fucked watching em. I take this personally. It's like they don't want me, the most important person in the world, watching their stupid corrupt tournament for high achieving private school lads.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
I believe I have too, but just don't assume everyone is the same. And prejudice = racism, and that is a big call to make against the panel is all I saying, without comparing sentences etc with others they have made. I would actually suggest ir more about money myself, as in all cases even in court, the more money you have the better legal representation you get?
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Yep and AB games are all at breakfast time for us good guys in NZ, all I think 7-9am, very respectable!I don't know what you're talking about, the Aus matches for me are at 6pm and 9pm.
From what I understand the QFs etc are same.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Prejudice is not equal to racism. But saying it is more about the money only reinforces the prejudices and biases that exist because who has less money? The poorer Pacific Island teams, the tier two teams.
People here may think this whole prejudice and bias doesn't exist but plenty of people are pointing out how differently Moala has been punished compared to Farrell. Moala - a guy with a pretty clean record - got 10 weeks FFS. Farrell got NOTHING. This problem exists and part of the reason it doesn't get fixed is that people don't want to believe/admit that it exists. They refuse to believe the players and the individuals who are victims of it or admit it's a serious issue.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
The comparison isn't between their actions - although one might argue that the outcome of Farrell's tackle was objectively 'far worse.' He had direct contact to the head with his shoulder and Basham failed his HIA.
But the comparison is between the punishments that got handed out. Are you trying to tell me that they AREN'T wanting to eradicate Farrell's tackle?!
The absurdity of defending 10 weeks to 0 weeks is part of the denial of this problem.
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
To be fair the Moala tackle is shocking. He literally picks and drops.
Māori heritage here so happy for people to accuse me of some defamatory quote haha
Māori heritage here so happy for people to accuse me of some defamatory quote haha
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
A tip tackle is far worse, we've literally seen a pro (NRL) player suffer permanent disability immediately from one. They are rarely accidental evidenced that are very rare nowadays, players can clearly stop doing them but high tackles continue to happen and can be from legal intended tackles gone wrong. FWIW, Basham didn't fail his HIA2 or 3. He is playing this week.
So IMO, Moala getting 5 weeks is likely justifiable, I think it's a little harsh for a first-offender but if WR (World Rugby) want to be that harsh on tip-tackles well ok. My point is, you should agree or at least think Moala's ban is only slightly harsh at 5 weeks, maybe 3 is appropriate. Criticise the Farrell one all you want because yes it should've been a ban but it's a different tackle really. I told you before the apt comparison is Lappies Labuschagne's ban of 3 weeks which was a similar tackle and had actual mitigation from a change in direction of the ball carrier yet wasn't applied for some reason. That's the comparison to make.
I'm done arguing this because you've been told twice now it's 5 weeks yet you continue to state it's 10 - you clearly are blindsided with some bias here.
So IMO, Moala getting 5 weeks is likely justifiable, I think it's a little harsh for a first-offender but if WR (World Rugby) want to be that harsh on tip-tackles well ok. My point is, you should agree or at least think Moala's ban is only slightly harsh at 5 weeks, maybe 3 is appropriate. Criticise the Farrell one all you want because yes it should've been a ban but it's a different tackle really. I told you before the apt comparison is Lappies Labuschagne's ban of 3 weeks which was a similar tackle and had actual mitigation from a change in direction of the ball carrier yet wasn't applied for some reason. That's the comparison to make.
I'm done arguing this because you've been told twice now it's 5 weeks yet you continue to state it's 10 - you clearly are blindsided with some bias here.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Murray Kinsella indicating that WR (World Rugby) likely to appeal the Farrell decision.
I would like to think this is appropriate. "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play" seems to be as cut and dry as you can get for these sorts of situations.
I would like to think this is appropriate. "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play" seems to be as cut and dry as you can get for these sorts of situations.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
It was 10 weeks downgraded to 5. So they are saying that they think for that action, Moala SHOULD get 10 but mitigating factors, clean history etc etc
In Farrells case, they think the action not only deserved to go unpunished, they think the original red card was wrong!
Again, you want to compare the action while I am comparing the punishments - or lack thereof - that they each received. I daresay no-one would be bringing up Moala at all if Farrell had got a deserved and text book 6 weeks.
The argument is NOT
“Farrell got 0 so Moala should get 0.”
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
No one reports bans as what they could've been but the end result.
Why do you keep using Moala's ban as a comparison, do you think it's wrong? Is it because he's a Pacific Islander? Labuschagne is white, had a clear mitigation ignored and was banned, you didn't bring that up or does it not fit the narrative of a prejudice against PI players.
Why do you keep using Moala's ban as a comparison, do you think it's wrong? Is it because he's a Pacific Islander? Labuschagne is white, had a clear mitigation ignored and was banned, you didn't bring that up or does it not fit the narrative of a prejudice against PI players.
Last edited: