All Black Squad for Rugby Championship
-
What a bunch of arse covering lawyers. No wonder it takes so long to publish a decision. Someone has to spent days pouring over words to say 'we do not criticize the previous decision' but then go on in detail to shoot down their flawed logic.
At no cost withheld can anyone be seen to be in error, that would be unthinkable.
Therefore they search around for a legal argument to explain how you can be wrong but not wrong. -
@Crucial said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
What a bunch of arse covering lawyers. No wonder it takes so long to publish a decision. Someone has to spent days pouring over words to say 'we do not criticize the previous decision' but then go on in detail to shoot down their flawed logic.
At no cost withheld can anyone be seen to be in error, that would be unthinkable.
Therefore they search around for a legal argument to explain how you can be wrong but not wrong.Starting with just "Australians... huh?" - would have reduced the billable hours far too much.
-
From a legal perspective, a very well motivated decision.
The crux, obviously, is that the Judicial Committee - in reaching its original decision - applied the wrong principles in the exercise of its discretion (in assessing the playing consequences of a suspension) by giving an incorrect interpretation of the rules around what constitutes a "meaningful match". This resulted in the erroneous decision that the "game of three halves" was not a meaningful match.
The Appeal Committee comes to another interpretation of what is a "meaningful match" and this leads to a different conclusion: the game of three halves is considered meaningful. For that reason, it upholds the appeal and the game of three halves counts towards the suspension. As a result, SBW is now free to play Bledisloe I.
-
I haven't really studied all the detail...but am I correct in saying that in the original decision
- The game of 3 halves didn't count towards the suspesnsion...
2)...but SBW was still banned from playing in the match?
-
@Billy-Tell
2) no, he would have be available to play. -
@JayCee said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@Billy-Tell
2) no, he would have be available to play.The way I understood it, it didn't count towards his ban, yet he still wasn't allowed to play.
That's where I believe their decision was flawed, it made no sense at all.
Bloody Aussies, trying to have their cake and eat it too! -
-
World Rugby Statement: Sonny Bill Williams Appeal Decision
The governing body is surprised by the decision of an independent panel to uphold the player's appeal in this case. While World Rugby respects the decision of the independent appeal committee to uphold the appeal by New Zealand’s Sonny Bill Williams against the matches that counted towards his four-week suspension, it is surprised by the committee’s interpretation of the definition of “match” (which is defined in Regulation 1 as “a game in which two teams compete against each other”). With the appeal process having been exhausted, World Rugby will refer the interpretation of the regulation to the Regulations Committee when it meets in September to examine the findings in the context of the game’s regulations to ensure universal clarity and compliance with the meaning of the regulation moving forward. -
@Stargazer said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
And by respect he means publicly shit on the decision.
-
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
-
-
Foster makes an interesting point
Ironically, if someone gets red-carded in this particular match they will have to go through a judiciary hearing as they would in any other competitive match. I think it's hypocritical to say that one player can be suspended for an illegal act in a match, but another player can't use that match to live out a suspension
-
@Nepia said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
Always liked Pichot the player back in the day. He's been a bit of a dick since joining WR.
Has he?
Seems to me he just went on a mission to get rid of project players, don't recall too much else myself.
-
@Stargazer said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
I think you are overreacting. The fact he 'retweeted' the WR statement doesn't really mean much.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@Stargazer said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
@antipodean Yeah, he was criticised for that on twitter and replied with this (the original tweet has been deleted):
I think that "I can disagree personally" is bullshit, because he tweeted the link to that WR media release straight after those earlier tweets. He's a public person/person in a high (public) position of WR, so he should assume that everything he posts on social media will be seen as a WR statement, unless he clearly states in the same tweet that it's his personal opinion only. And even then ...
I think you are overreacting. The fact he 'retweeted' the WR statement doesn't really mean much.
Nah, just a reaction. Don't care enough to overreact.
-
From a team perspective. I'd rather SBW was suspended for Bledisloe but got some good match practice in the non-game of 3 halves. He's going to be undercooked.
I would have thought a common sense judgement by the judiciary would have seen the non-game as a non-game and none of their business whether SBW or even Simon fucking Whareorere played in it, and UFC rules applied, with Greg Cooper v Richard Loe as
halfthird time entertainment, and Loe v Carozza as the other third time entertainment . Given it's a non-game.WR should concentrate on improving their competence in the non-financial areas of the sport, eg the governance.
-
While World Rugby respects the decision of the independent appeal committee to uphold the appeal by New Zealand’s Sonny Bill Williams against the matches that counted towards his four-week suspension, it is surprised by the committee’s interpretation of the definition of “match” (which is defined in Regulation 1 as “a game in which two teams compete against each other”).
Are they trying to say that two teams aren't competing against each other in this match?
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Black Squad for Rugby Championship:
Foster makes an interesting point
Ironically, if someone gets red-carded in this particular match they will have to go through a judiciary hearing as they would in any other competitive match. I think it's hypocritical to say that one player can be suspended for an illegal act in a match, but another player can't use that match to live out a suspension
I made the same point earlier in the thread. It would have been funny if they upheld that it wasn't a match then cited someone during it.
