Blues vs Crusaders
-
@kirwan said in Blues vs Crusaders:
@machpants said in Blues vs Crusaders:
If a ref sees a red card offence, even five mins later, for the protection of the players it should be given. What if Franks had stomped the head instead of the swinging arm to the head? Should we just shrug it off?
Once the act has been done, a red card is not usually going to protect the players - unless you think the guy is a psychopath, who's going to keep maiming people until he's stopped.
On your other point - suppose it's the RWC final and someone does something in the first five minutes that doesn't get discovered until the 70th minute. They stick it up on the big screen and the ref decides it's only a yellow card offence - does he still bin the player at a markedly different point in the game?
Even worse, suppose one of the opposition has retaliated to that incident and his retaliation has warranted a red card (again only discovered in the 70th minute), but that guy has already been subbed so can't be sent off.
-
-
@kirwan said in Blues vs Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues vs Crusaders:
That's what you get when you never take off your scrum cap. He probably just didn't hear Franks say sorry. He should learn to lip read!
I’m more worried that one of these Crusader props will act like thugs for the ABs and cost a Test match. It would be a shitty way to lose the Blesisloe.
Crusader props?
Playing in the NZ rugby team
Let's leave identity politics out of rugby eh -
@siam It's not just the Crusaders' props. It's SBW, who already cost us a Lions series. And what about bloody Ben Smith - if it weren't that Danny Boy was so great he could have cost us the World Cup final.
Let's leave them all out - in case they cost us the Bled! Get Sam Prattley in there!
-
@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/
-
@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.
