Blues 2022
-
@nogusta said in Blues 2022:
@nzzp barely remember him playing at St Kents. He was stuck behind Sam Nock most of his time there and hardly got a run.
I was about to bring that up. Funny how their roles have reversed.
Christie barely played in his last two years, because Nock was the starter as a 5th former.
-
St Kents had players from all over the NI, and often the best from other Auckland schools for their last couple of years of schooling. That has helped.
Christie has his own link (due to spelling).
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/schoollist.asp?sl_id=St Kentigern's College&stats_id=71
-
@bovidae said in Blues 2022:
St Kents had players from all over the NI, and often the best from other Auckland schools for their last couple of years of schooling. That has helped.
Christie has his own link (due to spelling).
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/schoollist.asp?sl_id=St Kentigern's College&stats_id=71
hah, yeah! St Kents vs St Kent.
the other St Kents has 9 ABs ... but 8/10 were in the last 5-6 years.
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/schoollist.asp?sl_id=St Kentigern College&stats_id=71
-
@stargazer so no clarification, just a punishment for clouting an attacker...
SANZAAR really is useless.
-
@antipodean It's unfortunate that SANZAAR only publishes media releases and not the full decisions, like World Rugby does.
-
@stargazer young age is now a basis to reduce bans.
FML.
-
@nzzp Yeah, it's strange. I can see inexperience as a basis for reduction, but Clarke has plenty of experience, including at the highest level.
He also didn't admit to any wrongdoing (no "his acceptance of foul play" in the reasoning) and contested the allegations; in most cases that means that you get one week less reduction (so a 4 week-ban). It's not impossible that they might have considered reducing the penalty more than 50% (for example to two weeks) if he had accepted the citing.
-
-
@stargazer said in Blues 2022:
@nzzp Yeah, it's strange. I can see inexperience as a basis for reduction, but Clarke has plenty of experience, including at the highest level.
He also didn't admit to any wrongdoing (no "his acceptance of foul play" in the reasoning) and contested the allegations; in most cases that means that you get one week less reduction (so a 4 week-ban). It's not impossible that they might have considered reducing the penalty more than 50% (for example to two weeks) if he had accepted the citing.
These things just give the appearance of being 'what do we reckon is fair considering the act and the person'? Then they retrofit some justification through the guidelines.
