Bledisloe II - Have a stab at the teams.

Mick Gold Coast QLD

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="610551" data-time="1472456549">
<div>
Relations with Aussie rugby seem to be heading South. 
It's gone rather Woodward05. And I think it's down to very similar reasons. Not enjoying the vitriole really. 
But I'll feed the beast. 
Listened to Devlin talikng to Mike Brewer this morning. 
"Mr Brewer" did make a rather telling comment towards the end of the interview that Moore's post match function speech was about 30s long and was rather sullen and petulant. Barely said anything. Boiled down to "I have to thanks coz I'm the Australian captain. So thanks". 
Apparently didn't acknowledge the opposition or officials. 
Hope Kearns calls him out on his "class". 
Links below. About 9 min 30s into second link. 
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2016.08.29-09.00.00-S.mp3 
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2016.08.29-09.15.00-S.mp3
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Oh dear. He's not learning real quick.
 
I would prefer Stephen Moore stop, think, spend some time with Andrew Slack or Farr Hyphen Jones, and improve how he does the captain part of his job. Notwithstanding that, when I cast around I find there is no-one to replace him. Foley is the last man standing.
 
The call is out over here to appoint Bono because he shook the referee's hand at the end of the match and on-one has ever done that before, ever. He will have already ordered a print from FoxSports to attach to his parliamentary rÃ©sumÃ©.

pooler fan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="610588" data-time="1472462802">Yes. Lower end is 12 weeks according to that. Although I seem to remember some people getting shorter bans.</blockquote>
Wales prop Tomas Francis got an 8 week ban for a similar offence during the 6 nations vs England. 
Francis' actions looked a lot more clumsy & accidental though. Franks' seemed more calculated & deliberate looking at the footage. Only he knew if he meant it, if he did I hope he gets what's coming to him. 
Personally think it's the worst offence any player can inflict on a rugby pitch. Only happened to me once in 20 years of senior rugby, once was enough !

Crucial

I'm not convinced Franks' action was deliberately targeting the eyes. He does seem to have taken the presented opportunity to do a facial though and should have been penalised and given a stern warning or YC at the time. If left to the citing procedure it needs to meet RC threshold, and in the case of eye contact the penalty is so strong that you'd want to be pretty sure before issuing a citing. 
Kind of falls in a gap because Poite took no action at the time. 
The maul needs a complete clean up anyway as nearly every single one has players reaching blindly around heads. In the Franks one I think from the reverse angle the first hand to face contact is from a Wallaby on an AB before Franks has two goes. It does just happen without intent and causes enough consternation that tweaking the maul laws could stop the potential right away.

Zader

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mick Gold Coast QLD" data-cid="610538" data-time="1472453843">
<div>
There is no remaining question - the process* used to investigate if there is anything to investigate has been followed and a finding has been announced.
 
* Comprising referee on the spot and looking at the play, linesman on the spot, video referee and SANZAR post game review. If the process is not to your liking then bang off a letter to SANZAR. It would have been preferable that you did so before the season commenced ... or did you only just now discover the process and decide you didn't like it for some reason?
</div>
</blockquote>
Well that is an asinine response. All they've said there isn't case to answer, but everyone can see the footage so in this day that isn't adequate. I'll get my legal team on right away Mick. Honestly.

rotated

Franks at most falls under 10.4a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist. If he copped 2 weeks under that charge I would not dispute it (aside from pointing out dozens of worse charges that went free). But eye gouging is another level charge and you would want to see some pretty clear evidence that there is actual "gouging" going on. Looks like a clear facial to me, that is not an ideal angle for an eye gouge.
 
Interesting Phibbs went uncited under 10.4(f) Holding, pushing or obstructing an Opponent not holding the ball, by a Player who is not in possession of the ball, except in a scrum, ruck or maul. Somewhere between 2-6 weeks the guidelines calls for.

kiwiinmelb

Yeah I dont believe it was an attempt at a gouge , mainly because it was too much in the open right in front of the ref , that stuff usually happens in dark corners ,
 
With all the niggle going on , I believe he was giving some back in the way of a facial ,
 
 but if the contact got too close to the eyes and still deserves punishment , ive got no idea on the technicalities of that one 
 
bad look though and probably shouldve been penalized

Mick Gold Coast QLD

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mick Gold Coast QLD" data-cid="610538" data-time="1472453843">
<div>
There is no remaining question - the process* used to investigate if there is anything to investigate has been followed and a finding has been announced.
 
* Comprising referee on the spot and looking at the play, linesman on the spot, video referee and SANZAR post game review. If the process is not to your liking then bang off a letter to SANZAR. It would have been preferable that you did so before the season commenced ... or did you only just now discover the process and decide you didn't like it for some reason?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Zader" data-cid="610625" data-time="1472486384">
<div>
Well that is an asinine response. All they've said there isn't case to answer, but everyone can see the footage so in this day that isn't adequate. I'll get my legal team on right away Mick. Honestly.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Ummm - Zader, is it possible your difficulty is with "everyone can see the footage so in this day that isn't adequate" rather than with my account, my "foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid" account?
 
Yesterday at 12:27pm I set out what has happened since that ruck was formed:
 
Whatever happened, or did not happen, happened in front of the referee and he made that clear by giving a direction to Franks; and in front of a linesman standing on the other side to the referee. Neither saw reason to act. The video referee remained silent too.
 
SANZAR, which runs the show, reviewed the whole match and stated there were no incidents in which it needed to intervene.
 
Australian management had the opportunity to make a claim within 12 hours after the match and they did not. Douglas had the same opportunity and did not take it.
 
In summary, the four independent elements in the system cranked over, did their job and powered down again. The supposedly aggrieved party, individual and collective, raised no issue.
 
That's pretty much the truth so far as I can see. SANZAR has "laws" and practices and it has acted consistently with them. Knock on SANZAR's door and announce to them that they are "asinine". 
 
There is another way which might appease the masses - a couple of extra referees, one embedded behind 1 in the line out, another jogging behind the midfield - that sort of thing - who can at any time announce "Suspected forward pass - vote now!" During the halt in play, while Mission Control tallies and seasonally adjusts the texts in response, Harvey Norman and Frank from National Tiles might distract the crowd from burning the stand to the ground, maybe.

sparky

Quite an achievement by Owen Franks to clearly not eye-gouge someone and yet wind up Brian "I could have died" O'Driscoll, Brennan " Keven Mealamu was poached from Tokoroa" Gallagher, Stephen "ban Sean Fitzpatrick for life" Jones, Brain " I am incandescent with rage that the World Cup is going to New Zealand" Moore and the Rugby correspondent of that notoriously racist and homophobic rag, the Daily Mail. None of those gentlemen are exactly admirers of the wonders of All Black Rugby. <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/83659114/international-media-slam-all-blacks-cloak-of-invisibility-over-owen-franks-incident">http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/83659114/international-media-slam-all-blacks-cloak-of-invisibility-over-owen-franks-incident</a>

booboo

"Incandescent with rage" was John Inverdale

barbarian

The fallout from the Franks gouge just raises more questions about SANZAAR processes.
 
I don't really know if it was a gouge or not, and can live with Franks not being cited. But there is clearly a bit of angst out there about it, and SANZAAR have fuelled that by their silence.
 
Why haven't they come out and given their point of view? A couple of paragraphs, saying 'We have reviewed all available footage and believe the contact to the face was incidental, and we saw no evidence of an eye gouge or any malicious action'. 
 
But they are sitting back and letting this run, and I can't see how that is in anyone's interest.

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mick Gold Coast QLD" data-cid="610667" data-time="1472510191">
<div>
That's pretty much the truth so far as I can see. SANZAR has "laws" and practices and it has acted consistently with them. Knock on SANZAR's door and announce to them that they are "asinine".
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Given their track record, I don't know how anyone can come on here and cite SANZAAR's 'laws and practices' with a straight face.

Tim

Anyone know if SANZAR has a press release or documentation site?

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="sparky" data-cid="610675" data-time="1472511284">
Quite an achievement by Owen Franks to clearly not eye-gouge someone and yet wind up Brian "I could have died" O'Driscoll, Brennan " Keven Mealamu was poached from Tokoroa" Gallagher, Stephen "ban Sean Fitzpatrick for life" Jones, Brain " I am incandescent with rage that the World Cup is going to New Zealand" Moore and the Rugby correspondent of that notoriously racist and homophobic rag, the Daily Mail. None of those gentlemen are exactly admirers of the wonders of All Black Rugby. <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/83659114/international-media-slam-all-blacks-cloak-of-invisibility-over-owen-franks-incident">http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/83659114/international-media-slam-all-blacks-cloak-of-invisibility-over-owen-franks-incident</a></blockquote>
 
Bizarre that Moore refers to the all blacks as the standard bearers of rugby considering the crap he's said in the past. While it's amusing to see these piston wristed gibbons so upset it's weird they think we always get the rub of the green. They weren't exactly open to the idea we were shafted in 2007 so trying to debate it with them is a waste of time.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="610680" data-time="1472512530">
<div>
The fallout from the Franks gouge just raises more questions about SANZAAR processes.
 
I don't really know if it was a gouge or not, and can live with Franks not being cited. But there is clearly a bit of angst out there about it, and SANZAAR have fuelled that by their silence.
 
Why haven't they come out and given their point of view? A couple of paragraphs, saying 'We have reviewed all available footage and believe the contact to the face was incidental, and we saw no evidence of an eye gouge or any malicious action'. 
 
But they are sitting back and letting this run, and I can't see how that is in anyone's interest. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep.
 
At a minimum it was fucking stupid play by Franks and giving someone a facial in a maul it's somewhat more by luck than good management that a finger doesn't give him a poke in the eye - which is then a gouge and you're gone for a heinous amount of time for something accidental, but on purpose - so to speak.
 
If they gave Owen a month for the facial I wouldn't be crying tears for him.
 
However, they haven't so we'll have a week of wailing and gnashing of teeth - and then it will be periodically brought out as evidence that the ABs are dirty bastards and always treated more leniently than anyone else.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="610680" data-time="1472512530">
<div>
The fallout from the Franks gouge just raises more questions about SANZAAR processes.
 
I don't really know if it was a gouge or not, and can live with Franks not being cited. But there is clearly a bit of angst out there about it, and SANZAAR have fuelled that by their silence.
 
Why haven't they come out and given their point of view? A couple of paragraphs, saying 'We have reviewed all available footage and believe the contact to the face was incidental, and we saw no evidence of an eye gouge or any malicious action'. 
 
But they are sitting back and letting this run, and I can't see how that is in anyone's interest. 
</div>
</blockquote>
100%. In a world where controversial stories get clicks and revenue they need to be so much smarter then that. You've got to douse any fires ASAP. If I was SANZAAR I would have a team of people dedicated to fighting fires in the media. This would be a case where they release a statement and go into damage control as much as possible.
 
Or just give Franks the two weeks he deserves.

mariner4life

You think 2 weeks would do anything? Anything less than 6 months will have the internet bores wailing about double standards, and a looong string of "if it was a south african/irish/french player it would be a year" garbage.
 
I'm cool with SANZAR basically ignoring the frothing of social media, because the alternatives are a lot more serious IMO

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="610702" data-time="1472515973">
<div>
If I was SANZAAR I would have a team of people dedicated to fighting fires in the media. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
My first read of that was "...lighting fires in the media". 
 
A WTF moment. :)

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="610703" data-time="1472516450">
<div>
You think 2 weeks would do anything? Anything less than 6 months will have the internet bores wailing about double standards, and a looong string of "if it was a south african/irish/french player it would be a year" garbage.
 
I'm cool with SANZAR basically ignoring the frothing of social media, because the alternatives are a lot more serious IMO
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I don't like the social media frothing, but when you filter out the crap, they do have a pretty serious point about inconsistency.
 
Other players have been banned for less, and this area has been of huge focus over the last year or so.
 
It makes no sense to me that he hasn't been cited and subsequently banned.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="610703" data-time="1472516450">
<div>
You think 2 weeks would do anything? Anything less than 6 months will have the internet bores wailing about double standards, and a looong string of "if it was a south african/irish/french player it would be a year" garbage.
 
I'm cool with SANZAR basically ignoring the frothing of social media, because the alternatives are a lot more serious IMO
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah, no matter what you do people will whinge. And no way, under any circumstance, should they be changing their decision based on the social media "backlash" as they have in the past. That just ruins their reputation.
 
But for instances like this that are heavily talked about, they should be making a decision and a statement explaining that decision. And then stand firm. That IMO would go a long way to dousing many of the fires, and also make them look competent and transparent, which would build more respect from their customer base (I.E. fans).

MajorRage

Side note - what the fuck is Keith Quinn's fucking problem?
 
He's now tweeted that NZ fans are more concerned about Phipps shoe throwing than Franks non-citing. This has of course, been forwarded on and shared by all the anti-NZ brigade. 
 
I am fucking furious. For a start, it's a load of shit. Read this thread, read the GAGR thread, read anything - nobody really gives a fuck about Phipps, I've only seen it mentioned by NZ rugby journo's who need a base case level 1 course in PR. I am fucking sick of being told what I think about things because I support the AB's by halfwits who have an agenda against us. Fucking sick of it.
 
I get that being at the top of the tree means you have more people throwing barbs at you. I get that there are a couple of shitty AB incidents over the past 50 years that leave certain bitter dipshits with a permanently engrained view that everything we do is cheating, I get all that. But why do we have all have to be tarred with some shitty brush to suit some fuckheads crappy agenda. We're crap because we all boo QC - Fuck off, at it's peak it was probably 20-25%, and on Saturday, it sounded like maybe 250 people max. In a crowd of 35,000. Fuck that, we aren't all shittty uncouth saddo's from the wrong sides of the track (which btw, is nothing to be ashamed of as nobody chooses how much money their parents have), and we aren't all crazy one-eyed lunatics who think the AB's are beyond reproach.
 
I've had a fucking gutful of the last few days, but Quinn, you've properly crossed the line. I give you offical Major Rage, Go and GET FUCKED award. I've read probably about 20 times on the weekend that AB greatness is "tainted" because of leaner treatment from the officials, well whatever, but I assure you Keith, Everything you do, write, say is now tainted as well. Because you are just trying to kiss the arse of the cancer of rugby, which to me, makes you part of the cancer of rugby.
 
Keith, you're a fluffybunny. Fuck you.

The Silver Fern

Bledisloe II - Have a stab at the teams.