Blues vs Crusaders
-
@stargazer Doesn't sound like he turned up to drop Owen in the shit. Merely an interviewer clued enough to follow the rabbit down the warren.
-
@antipodean my question is, did he really tell the judiciary he had said sorry or is this just a standard response SANZAR put out and didn't even fact check in the media release given we hear pretty much the same 4 factors trotted out after each hearing.
The other thing is, as teams are shaking hands, maybe a shake, a bit of a sad look and nod, to a Neanderthal like Owen may be considered an apology
Geez, I remember last time a rugby player demanded an apology...that didn't go on very long
-
@stargazer said in Blues vs Crusaders:
@nepia said in Blues vs Crusaders:
Did anyone hear the interview? Did Parsons know when the question was asked whether Franks used it in his defence?
The audio: http://www.radiosport.co.nz/on-air/darcy-and-goran/audio/james-parsons-i-havent-received-an-apology/
Cheers, but I wasn't looking to listen myself - was hoping someone who listened would give the info.
-
So Franks tried to apologise - he reached out - but Parsons brushed him off and didn't give him the opportunity to apologise, according to rugby lawyer Aaron Lloyd on the Short Ball podcast (episode 18).
-
Fuck who cares. As @antipodean said an apology shouldn't factor into thr sentencing at all. The judiciary is a joke.
-
@no-quarter Stuff care!
-
-
It’s a complete overkill. Franks tried to clean out, made contact with head. Yes red card but accidental, and some coaching on technique required. Unfortunate that refs missed it but with so much happening on field this will happen. No problem with judiciary giving a couple of weeks for accidental contact. It’s not tiddly winks and sometimes stuff happens. This doesn’t make the Crusaders dirty. It does mean any players involved need to take note and work to improve technique.
-
@majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:
Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.
Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.
What is relevant is if Franks is a good Christian.
-
@majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:
Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.
Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.
What if they write a heartfelt letter and put it on social media?
-
@no-quarter said in Blues vs Crusaders:
@majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:
Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.
Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.
What if they write a heartfelt letter and put it on social media?
Dunno if you knew this or not ... but apparently Franks lack of social media skills was mentioned by the lawyer ...
-
@act-crusader said in Blues vs Crusaders:
@majorrage said in Blues vs Crusaders:
Talk about retarded. I'm sorry I smashed you in the face, can I have a lighter sentence now.
Apologising was irrelevant to anything in 2005, it still is in 2018.
What is relevant is if Franks is a good Christian.
Depends on the judiciary's point of view I suppose ... he's either
- Retarded for believing in a fairy in the sky
- Retarded for being an infidel
- Worth of sentence reduction and going into credit.
Not the best odds.
