RWC SF: England v Springboks
-
@Duluth said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
Why not just admit your first post was incorrect and move on? No one gives a shit
My reading of it seems to be.
-
I thought long and hard about replying and picking on what is clearly and understandably a very raw scab. I have also considered the "this pissboiling storm in a fine bonechina heirloom teacup" comment and further wondered whether to reply.
Anyway, wine has been drunk and reason is the innocent victim, so...
I did take on board your previous post and had hoped that I'd conveyed that but maybe I fell short - apologies if that is the case. It is difficult as an outsider to really understand what goes on in another country, you can have a view but it is not a lived experience view.
I've looked at your argument and tried to take the emotion out of it and I guess where we differ on this is our interpretation of the process that has taken place. If we consider our own biases then on the one hand WR has undertaken an independent review and has found insufficient evidence to take Bongi to task. On the other hand we have a view that WR has not undertaken a proper review and has not taken direct testimony from either Bongi or Curry despite protestations from the England camp. Now I - and I'm guessing you and everyone else on here does not know the truth of this either way. The link you provided from Tim's text is just a tweet, an opinion piece and the view anyone would take from that is dependent upon which part of it they wish to believe.On the one hand WR had their due process, on the other hand England feel they did not get due process. Again, neither me, you or anyone else here really knows.
Looking at the posts on here in regard to this issue I don't think anyone is hanging Bongi out to dry in any respect. I am certainly not. However I agree with you that is not up there with Rosa Parks or Wilberforce and much is being made of it, maybe too much, but this is the world we now live in. What we should expect though is clarity and consistency and clearly, England and Borthwick feel very strongly that we have not seen this. Maybe they're right and maybe not. Openness from WR would clear this up. Well at least I hope it would.
Anyway old chap enjoy the re-watch of the 36-0 game, I think I must be a little older than you as I'm going to re-watch the November 2002 match...
Totsiens!
-
@Catogrande said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Billy-Webb said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
The big question is why the RFU are doubling down. Could be that they're still salty about the SF, but they really have zero to gain from doing this. Before I was firmly in the camp that it there was nothing in it and that Curry should have focussed on the biggest game of his life and not bad words hurting his feelings. Now I not so sure. Again, why double down?
We're talking about the RFU here.
Not really the paragon of a thoughtful well run organization with a bunch of geniuses at the top of late are they?Whilst I agree with you view on the RFU, what makes me wonder is that they have effectively broken ranks with the status quo and that is not really in their DNA.
That's what intrigues me. If it were Comical Eddie I'd say he was shit-stirring. But Borthwick doesn't strike me as a bloke to play games.
-
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
-
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
And yet the RFU have suggested Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story of what happened. That’s weird no? Either weird that he didn’t have the opportunity, or that he did and they claimed he didn’t.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Billy-Webb said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
The big question is why the RFU are doubling down. Could be that they're still salty about the SF, but they really have zero to gain from doing this. Before I was firmly in the camp that it there was nothing in it and that Curry should have focussed on the biggest game of his life and not bad words hurting his feelings. Now I not so sure. Again, why double down?
We're talking about the RFU here.
Not really the paragon of a thoughtful well run organization with a bunch of geniuses at the top of late are they?Whilst I agree with you view on the RFU, what makes me wonder is that they have effectively broken ranks with the status quo and that is not really in their DNA.
That's what intrigues me. If it were Comical Eddie I'd say he was shit-stirring. But Borthwick doesn't strike me as a bloke to play games.
Certainly not rugby!
But yeah, he’s a straight up sort of bloke and as I’ve alluded to previously, the RFU aren’t known for rocking the boat, more sit back, drink the gin and it will all blow over sort of thing. For both to come out as strongly as they have, there must be a perceived grievance. Whether that is lack of due process or a belief that Bongi is a serial offender I don’t know. But something ain’t right.
If it is related to Bongi, I’m thinking that it would be an issue but it might be getting over inflated. But maybe that’s my age showing.
-
@OomPB said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
"we don’t live in a world where race based insults are accepted, on that basis they should all be treated the same with the same level of commitment to investigation."
Are you saying race base insults are accepted in South Africa?
No I’m saying that in this day and age we (and especially South Africa) don’t accept race based insults.
I’m also saying that race based insults aimed at white people seem to carry less risk than the other way around and that if Bongi was white and Curry was black the level of controversy would be way higher.
-
@Dodge said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
And yet the RFU have suggested Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story of what happened. That’s weird no? Either weird that he didn’t have the opportunity, or that he did and they claimed he didn’t.
Interesting what a cynical media strategy can do. The RFU’s statement does misleadingly insinuate that Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story.
But he did have the opportunity to do so. The RFU statement says so of you parse it carefully. We know he was interviewed because the RFU says that Curry told WR about the alleged Nov 22 abuse. Which tracks with WR’s statement that it took evidence from both teams.
So how has Curry been denied the opportunity to tell his story?
Well, only because the evidence (including Curry’s testimony) is too weak to reasonably bring a misconduct proceeding against Mbonambi.
-
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
And yet the RFU have suggested Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story of what happened. That’s weird no? Either weird that he didn’t have the opportunity, or that he did and they claimed he didn’t.
Interesting what a cynical media strategy can do. The RFU’s statement does misleadingly insinuate that Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story.
But he did have the opportunity to do so. The RFU statement says so of you parse it carefully. We know he was interviewed because the RFU says that Curry told WR about the alleged Nov 22 abuse. Which tracks with WR’s statement that it took evidence from both teams.
So how has Curry been denied the opportunity to tell his story?
Well, only because the evidence (including Curry’s testimony) is too weak to reasonably bring a misconduct proceeding against Mbonambi.
So has he or has he not been interviewed about why he said what he said to the ref?
-
@Catogrande does he strike you as an ALL CAPS user? Or the gin guzzlers either for that matter?
-
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Dodge He was. The RFU say so. They just don’t like the DO’s assessment of his testimony.
The more interesting question is why did the RFU put out a statement that left reasonable English supporters confused.
Where does it say that? I’m not disagreeing, I just don’t understand where it’s been said he’s had his voice heard?
-
It obviously doesn't need to be explained that this is an ultra, hyper sensitive issue. There are appurtenant and reasonable questions to ask about why the English camp are putting their neck out like this. Simply slagging them off with accusations of sour grapes and manipulating the press is pretty damn weak.
-
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
3rd para they say Curry spoke to the investigators and then in the 5th they whinge that WR is not putting “THE EVIDENCE” before a disciplinary panel so “HIS ACCOUNT” can be assessed against the other available evidence.
Mate, I’m drunk and definitely not trying to be a dick (it comes naturally), but can you post a link to what you’re talking about? I can only find the WRU statement above
-
Thanks, hadn’t seen that.
Edit: don’t know what that link actually says or is complaining about to be honest. “Informed by Tom Curry” might mean in writing, rather than interviewed by a panel? Don’t know, either way, it appears he was able to present his case - even if it was in writing - it was just decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed with a charge. Thems the breaks.
The ferocity of the RFU and Borthwick’s response speaks volumes for them sticking up for their player, but I don’t know what it says about the truth of the incident.
Overall, and last word on it from me, I’ve still got no idea if it happened, still feel sorry for Curry about how he’s been treated and suspect players have learned a simple truth that complaining about this sort of thing isn’t good for you, so they won’t
-
@stodders said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande RFU alleging that Mbonambi is a repeat offender. Ooer
He did yell it several times.
-
@Dodge said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
No due process, repeat accusation, can only imagine the gnashing of teeth if the accusation had been the other way around. The abuse Tom Curry has received online is shameful
I will not be shamed for my reliably eyes and ears informed position that Curry is a moron.
