Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lions V Aussies (First Test)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Creabhar View Post
    Just been watching the only rugby show (15 man version) I can find out here on fox sports
    nathan sharpe is less than impressed with the IRB review of his buddy's jig on wyn jones
    aussies are worried about the "precedent" being set by reviewing a citing decision.

    btw, sexton, o'brien, bowe and POC are surprisingly highly rated here, with Tom croft coming in for particular abuse from your stereotypical talking heads. Rod Kafer also does a decent dean ryan impression on the tactics board.
    I get the Aussie commentary and they tend to speak highly of the Irish lads during the games too.

    IMO the simple reason is that the Irish lads who were picked in the original squad are all genuine test quality and were mostly in good form. We got no token picks and no 50/50 calls went the way of an Irish player. As a result, our lads have mostly delivered.

    Those four lads in particular should be highly rated, they're all amongst the best in the world in their positions.

    Comment


      The first test was a bit unstructured, no real pattern, the tries came from a mixture of oppurtunism and rank bad defending. I expect a better more structured game tomorrow although Oz will try to keep it loose and the tempo higher as its suits them
      My computer thinks I'm gay
      What's the difference anyway
      When all the people do all day
      Is stare into a phone

      Comment


        Originally posted by The Word Is Born View Post
        It was the citing panel that stirred up the hornet's nest. The IRB have been left with no option but to appeal in order to stamp this out, pardon the turn of phrase.
        Was the citing panel appointed by the ARU from a list of people approved by the IRB? Trying to figure out the grounds the IRB have for appealing against the verdict.

        Comment


          Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post
          Was the citing panel appointed by the ARU from a list of people approved by the IRB? Trying to figure out the grounds the IRB have for appealing against the verdict.
          From May 2012...the IRB has right to appeal citing decisions....under law 17.22.2

          This was brought in after the furore of Rougerie on McCaw in rwc final.
          Only incidents from that date can be reviewed.. Remember adam thompson got his ban doubled under this review.
          This is the first time they are reviewing a "not guilty" verdict.
          "Hell, I'm not saying I'm an angel, but when it came to dirty tricks I couldn't hold a candle to the Irish Mafia" Jimmy Hoffa

          Comment


            The lads on green and gold seem to think Hampton was appointed by the IRB which means it is a bit odd that they are appealing against their own decision. I don't really care too much as I think Horwill is guilty as sin but there is going to be a row after the next test either way because this process has/is being handled appallingly.

            Comment


              Apologies if anyone has posted this before:

              O'Gara with the drop at goal, has gone between the posts! Ronan O'Gara, between the posts! After about 145 phases! O'Gara between the posts!
              - Michael Corcoran

              Comment


                Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post
                The lads on green and gold seem to think Hampton was appointed by the IRB which means it is a bit odd that they are appealing against their own decision. I don't really care too much as I think Horwill is guilty as sin but there is going to be a row after the next test either way because this process has/is being handled appallingly.
                Not in the least odd. The initial citing, after all, is an IRB appointed Citing Commissioner reviewing the actions of an IRB appointed ref in front of an IRB appointee. It's how internal reviews work.

                Still, one can understand why the inmates of HMP Australia would be all in favour of the guilty not being punished for their crimes.
                Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
                  Not in the least odd. The initial citing, after all, is an IRB appointed Citing Commissioner reviewing the actions of an IRB appointed ref in front of an IRB appointee. It's how internal reviews work.

                  Still, one can understand why the inmates of HMP Australia would be all in favour of the guilty not being punished for their crimes.
                  They are all going on about double jeopardy over on green and gold!?!

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post
                    They are all going on about double jeopardy over on green and gold!?!
                    Adam Ashley Judd has done nothing of note since that movie.
                    "Hell, I'm not saying I'm an angel, but when it came to dirty tricks I couldn't hold a candle to the Irish Mafia" Jimmy Hoffa

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post
                      They are all going on about double jeopardy over on green and gold!?!
                      And they're talking ********. An appeal is not two separate proceedings for the same offence, it's part of the same proceedings.
                      Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by NotreDameRFC View Post
                        Adam Ashley Judd has done nothing of note since that movie.
                        Very good. :_giggle__rvmp_by_ba

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
                          And they're talking ********. An appeal is not two separate proceedings for the same offence, it's part of the same proceedings.
                          I understand that would be the case if the defendant was found guilty but does that apply when the defendant is found not guilty? If Horwill is found guilty by this process will he have a right of appeal? To whom would he appeal? Might he even have real legal redress against the IRB for their process? There will be some members of the legal profession paying some school fees over this one.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post
                            I understand that would be the case if the defendant was found guilty but does that apply when the defendant is found not guilty? If Horwill is found guilty by this process will he have a right of appeal? To whom would he appeal? Might he even have real legal redress against the IRB for their process? There will be some members of the legal profession paying some school fees over this one.
                            In order: yes - this isn't criminal proceedings, after all, it's sporting disciplinary stuff. No: final jurisdiction, under the Regs that everyone signs up to (Regulation 17). No-one: CAS is by consent only, and the IRB ain't part of it. Possibly, but good luck with that, Jimmy; Union v. IRB disputes (which this would be) are under E&W law in English courts, under the supervisory jurisdiction, and the Crim courts refused similar attempts in the past where the process in the regulations is a) basically fair (it is) and b) followed (it is). And, how bad. :D
                            Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
                              In order: yes - this isn't criminal proceedings, after all, it's sporting disciplinary stuff. No: final jurisdiction, under the Regs that everyone signs up to (Regulation 17). No-one: CAS is by consent only, and the IRB ain't part of it. Possibly, but good luck with that, Jimmy; Union v. IRB disputes (which this would be) are under E&W law in English courts, under the supervisory jurisdiction, and the Crim courts refused similar attempts in the past where the process in the regulations is a) basically fair (it is) and b) followed (it is). And, how bad. :D
                              Do you ever do any work for your real clients? :D

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post
                                Do you ever do any work for your real clients? :D
                                Who do you think I looked this stuff up for first day? ;)
                                Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X